|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
Over the past decades, considerable debate has emerged surrounding
the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to analyze and make
recommendations for environmental and safety regulations. Critics
argue that CBA forces values on unquantifiable factors, that it
does not adequately measure benefits across generations, and that
it is not adaptable in situations of uncertainty. Proponents, on
the other hand, believe that a well-done CBA provides useful,
albeit imperfect, information to policymakers precisely because of
the standard metrics that are applied across the analysis. Largely
absent from the debate have been practical questions about how the
use of CBA could be improved. Relying on the assumption that CBA
will remain an important component in the regulatory process, this
new work from Resources for the Future brings together experts
representing both sides of the debate to analyze the use of CBA in
three key case studies: the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean
Air Mercury Rule, and the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule
(Phase II). Each of the case studies is accompanied by critiques
from both an opponent and a proponent of CBA and includes
consideration of complementary analyses that could have been
employed. The work's editors - two CBA supporters and one critic -
conclude the report by offering concrete recommendations for
improving the use of CBA, focusing on five areas: technical quality
of the analyses, relevance to the agency decision-making process,
transparency of the analyses, treatment of new scientific findings,
and balance in both the analyses and associated processes,
including the treatment of distributional consequences.
Over the past decades, considerable debate has emerged surrounding
the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to analyze and make
recommendations for environmental and safety regulations. Critics
argue that CBA forces values on unquantifiable factors, that it
does not adequately measure benefits across generations, and that
it is not adaptable in situations of uncertainty. Proponents, on
the other hand, believe that a well-done CBA provides useful,
albeit imperfect, information to policymakers precisely because of
the standard metrics that are applied across the analysis. Largely
absent from the debate have been practical questions about how the
use of CBA could be improved. Relying on the assumption that CBA
will remain an important component in the regulatory process, this
new work from Resources for the Future brings together experts
representing both sides of the debate to analyze the use of CBA in
three key case studies: the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean
Air Mercury Rule, and the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule
(Phase II). Each of the case studies is accompanied by critiques
from both an opponent and a proponent of CBA and includes
consideration of complementary analyses that could have been
employed. The work's editors - two CBA supporters and one critic -
conclude the report by offering concrete recommendations for
improving the use of CBA, focusing on five areas: technical quality
of the analyses, relevance to the agency decision-making process,
transparency of the analyses, treatment of new scientific findings,
and balance in both the analyses and associated processes,
including the treatment of distributional consequences.
|
You may like...
Tenet
John David Washington, Robert Pattinson
Blu-ray disc
(1)
R54
Discovery Miles 540
Gloria
Sam Smith
CD
R407
Discovery Miles 4 070
|