Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review. Rose-Ackerman, S. 65:335+. Paper abstract bibtex Policymakers need to reassess the role of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in regulatory review. Although it remains a valuable tool, a number of pressing current problems do not fit well into the CBA paradigm. In particular, climate change, nuclear accident risks, and the preservation of biodiversity can have very long-run impacts that may produce catastrophic and irreversible effects. This article seeks to put cost-benefit analysis in its place by demonstrating both its strengths and its limitations. The Obama Administration should rethink the use of CBA as a way to evaluate regulatory policies and develop procedures to restrict its use to policy areas where its underlying assumptions fit the nature of the problem.
@article{rose-ackermanPuttingCostbenefitAnalysis2011,
title = {Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review},
author = {Rose-Ackerman, Susan},
date = {2011},
journaltitle = {University of Miami Law Review},
volume = {65},
pages = {335+},
url = {http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4156/},
abstract = {Policymakers need to reassess the role of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in regulatory review. Although it remains a valuable tool, a number of pressing current problems do not fit well into the CBA paradigm. In particular, climate change, nuclear accident risks, and the preservation of biodiversity can have very long-run impacts that may produce catastrophic and irreversible effects. This article seeks to put cost-benefit analysis in its place by demonstrating both its strengths and its limitations. The Obama Administration should rethink the use of CBA as a way to evaluate regulatory policies and develop procedures to restrict its use to policy areas where its underlying assumptions fit the nature of the problem.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13319344,climate-change,controversial-monetarisation,cost-benefit-analysis,discount-rate,future-earth,pareto-frontier,science-ethics}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"uQnDA86Y9TqtKXpQJ","bibbaseid":"roseackerman-puttingcostbenefitanalysisinitsplacerethinkingregulatoryreview","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Rose-Ackerman, S."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Rose-Ackerman"],"firstnames":["Susan"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2011","journaltitle":"University of Miami Law Review","volume":"65","pages":"335+","url":"http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4156/","abstract":"Policymakers need to reassess the role of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in regulatory review. Although it remains a valuable tool, a number of pressing current problems do not fit well into the CBA paradigm. In particular, climate change, nuclear accident risks, and the preservation of biodiversity can have very long-run impacts that may produce catastrophic and irreversible effects. This article seeks to put cost-benefit analysis in its place by demonstrating both its strengths and its limitations. The Obama Administration should rethink the use of CBA as a way to evaluate regulatory policies and develop procedures to restrict its use to policy areas where its underlying assumptions fit the nature of the problem.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13319344,climate-change,controversial-monetarisation,cost-benefit-analysis,discount-rate,future-earth,pareto-frontier,science-ethics","bibtex":"@article{rose-ackermanPuttingCostbenefitAnalysis2011,\n title = {Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review},\n author = {Rose-Ackerman, Susan},\n date = {2011},\n journaltitle = {University of Miami Law Review},\n volume = {65},\n pages = {335+},\n url = {http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4156/},\n abstract = {Policymakers need to reassess the role of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in regulatory review. Although it remains a valuable tool, a number of pressing current problems do not fit well into the CBA paradigm. In particular, climate change, nuclear accident risks, and the preservation of biodiversity can have very long-run impacts that may produce catastrophic and irreversible effects. This article seeks to put cost-benefit analysis in its place by demonstrating both its strengths and its limitations. The Obama Administration should rethink the use of CBA as a way to evaluate regulatory policies and develop procedures to restrict its use to policy areas where its underlying assumptions fit the nature of the problem.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13319344,climate-change,controversial-monetarisation,cost-benefit-analysis,discount-rate,future-earth,pareto-frontier,science-ethics}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Rose-Ackerman, S."],"key":"rose-ackermanPuttingCostbenefitAnalysis2011","id":"rose-ackermanPuttingCostbenefitAnalysis2011","bibbaseid":"roseackerman-puttingcostbenefitanalysisinitsplacerethinkingregulatoryreview","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4156/"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13319344","climate-change","controversial-monetarisation","cost-benefit-analysis","discount-rate","future-earth","pareto-frontier","science-ethics"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:20.068Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13319344","climate-change","controversial-monetarisation","cost-benefit-analysis","discount-rate","future-earth","pareto-frontier","science-ethics"],"search_terms":["putting","cost","benefit","analysis","place","rethinking","regulatory","review","rose-ackerman"],"title":"Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}