Toward the usable recognition of individual benefits and costs in regulatory analysis and governance |
| |
| Authors: | Carl F. Cranor Adam M. Finkel |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Philosophy, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA;2. Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA, USA and, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe have well‐deserved reputations for fixating on the total benefits and costs of proposed and final regulatory actions, without doing any more than anecdotally mentioning the subpopulations and individuals who may bear disproportionate costs or reap disproportionate benefits. This is especially true on the “cost” side of the cost–benefit ledger, where analysts exert little effort to even inform decisionmakers and the public that the costs of regulations might be distributed either regressively or progressively. Many scholars and advocates have observed that regulation can increase the efficiency of market outcomes, but caution about its untoward (or suboptimal) effects on equity. Here, we argue that without considering distributional information about costs and benefits, regulatory policies in fact can also cause violence to notions of efficiency, for two reasons: (i) society cannot hope to approach Pareto‐efficient outcomes without identifying those who must lose so that others can gain more; and (ii) because the harm experienced by involuntary risks and by imposed regulatory costs is likely non‐linear in its magnitude (at the individual level), efficiency is, in fact, a strong function of the shape of the distribution of these effects. This article reviews evidence about the distribution of regulatory costs and benefits, describes how agencies fail to incorporate readily available distributional information, and sketches a vision for how they could analyze costs and benefits to promote more efficient regulatory choices and outcomes. |
| |
| Keywords: | cost– benefit analysis efficiency interindividual variability utility functions valuation |
|
|
