Rules for the rulemakers: asymmetric information and the political economy of benefit-cost analysis

Abstract

This paper presents a model of an executive administration that decides whether to mandate benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of newly proposed regulations. A regulator has private information about the social benefit of a new rule but may differ from the executive’s preferences for regulation. BCA, which provides a noisy signal of the rule’s social benefit, is most valuable when the executive is regulation neutral. Extremely regulation-averse administrations may be harmed by BCA unless they can bias it. Our results are consistent with use of BCA by U.S. presidential administrations since Reagan.