首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis最新文献

英文 中文
Inequality and the Value of a Statistical Life 不平等和统计生命的价值
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2023-02-21 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2023.7
C. Sunstein
Abstract A uniform value of a statistical life (VSL) is part of established practice within the federal government. Some people have applauded a uniform VSL on the ground that it respects the equality of persons; takes harm to poor people as seriously as it does harm to wealthy people; avoids expressive harms; and builds appropriate wealth redistribution into regulatory policy. Other people have strenuously objected to a uniform VSL, emphasizing that to reduce mortality risks, poor people are willing to pay less than rich people are, and urging that poor people should not have to pay more than they are willing to pay. Whether a uniform VSL is in the interest of poor people depends on whether we are dealing with subsidies or regulations. In the case of subsidies, a uniform VSL is highly likely to benefit poor people. If we are dealing with regulations, we cannot know whether a uniform VSL helps or harms poor people without knowing the incidence of costs (and benefits).
统计寿命的统一值(VSL)是联邦政府内既定实践的一部分。一些人赞成统一的VSL,理由是它尊重人的平等;对穷人的伤害和对富人的伤害一样严重;避免表达性伤害;并将适当的财富再分配纳入监管政策。另一些人则极力反对统一的VSL,强调为了降低死亡风险,穷人愿意比富人支付更少的费用,并敦促穷人不应该支付超过他们愿意支付的费用。统一的VSL是否符合穷人的利益取决于我们是在处理补贴还是监管问题。就补贴而言,统一的VSL极有可能使穷人受益。如果我们处理的是法规,如果不知道成本(和收益)的发生率,我们就无法知道统一的VSL是帮助还是伤害穷人。
{"title":"Inequality and the Value of a Statistical Life","authors":"C. Sunstein","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.7","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A uniform value of a statistical life (VSL) is part of established practice within the federal government. Some people have applauded a uniform VSL on the ground that it respects the equality of persons; takes harm to poor people as seriously as it does harm to wealthy people; avoids expressive harms; and builds appropriate wealth redistribution into regulatory policy. Other people have strenuously objected to a uniform VSL, emphasizing that to reduce mortality risks, poor people are willing to pay less than rich people are, and urging that poor people should not have to pay more than they are willing to pay. Whether a uniform VSL is in the interest of poor people depends on whether we are dealing with subsidies or regulations. In the case of subsidies, a uniform VSL is highly likely to benefit poor people. If we are dealing with regulations, we cannot know whether a uniform VSL helps or harms poor people without knowing the incidence of costs (and benefits).","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"8 1","pages":"1 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88879927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
All Cancers Are not Created Equal: How Do Survival Prospects Affect the Willingness to Pay to Avoid Cancer? 并非所有癌症都是平等的:生存前景如何影响为避免癌症而付费的意愿?
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2023-01-17 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.21
A. Alberini, C. Rheinberger, Milan Ščasný
Abstract Regulatory impact analyses of proposed environmental, occupational, and consumer product safety regulations often rely on a metric known as the Value per Statistical Case of Cancer (VSCC), that is, the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for reductions in the risk of developing cancer. In this paper, we ask whether the VSCC depends on cancer survival prospects. We develop a simple theoretical model that shows that under standard assumptions the VSCC is decreasing in the chance of surviving cancer. We empirically test this prediction by means of a stated preference survey, where we ask subjects aged 45–60 from the general population in the Czech Republic to report information about their WTP for reductions in the risk of getting cancer. One half of the sample was told that, if they got cancer, the 5-year survival rate was 60 % (corresponding to the average survival chances across all types of cancer), while the other half was told that it was 75 %. Consistent with the theoretical model, we find that the VSCC is larger in the former group. The ratio between the VSCC of the two groups is approximately equal to the ratio between the conditional cancer mortality risks implied by the survey’s survival rates, suggesting that the VSCC is proportional to conditional cancer mortality. Our findings have important policy implications in the context of regulations that focus on pollutants linked to cancers with different chances of survival.
对拟议的环境、职业和消费品安全法规的监管影响分析通常依赖于一种被称为“每统计癌症病例价值”(VSCC)的指标,即公众为降低患癌症的风险而支付的意愿(WTP)。在本文中,我们询问VSCC是否取决于癌症生存前景。我们建立了一个简单的理论模型,该模型表明,在标准假设下,VSCC正在降低癌症存活的机会。我们通过一项声明偏好调查对这一预测进行了实证检验,在调查中,我们要求捷克共和国普通人群中年龄在45-60岁之间的受试者报告有关他们的WTP降低患癌症风险的信息。一半的人被告知,如果他们得了癌症,5年生存率是60%(与所有类型癌症的平均生存率相对应),而另一半人被告知是75%。与理论模型一致,我们发现前一组的VSCC更大。两组的VSCC之间的比率大致等于调查存活率所暗示的条件癌症死亡率风险之间的比率,这表明VSCC与条件癌症死亡率成正比。我们的研究结果具有重要的政策意义,因为监管的重点是与不同生存机会的癌症相关的污染物。
{"title":"All Cancers Are not Created Equal: How Do Survival Prospects Affect the Willingness to Pay to Avoid Cancer?","authors":"A. Alberini, C. Rheinberger, Milan Ščasný","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Regulatory impact analyses of proposed environmental, occupational, and consumer product safety regulations often rely on a metric known as the Value per Statistical Case of Cancer (VSCC), that is, the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for reductions in the risk of developing cancer. In this paper, we ask whether the VSCC depends on cancer survival prospects. We develop a simple theoretical model that shows that under standard assumptions the VSCC is decreasing in the chance of surviving cancer. We empirically test this prediction by means of a stated preference survey, where we ask subjects aged 45–60 from the general population in the Czech Republic to report information about their WTP for reductions in the risk of getting cancer. One half of the sample was told that, if they got cancer, the 5-year survival rate was 60 % (corresponding to the average survival chances across all types of cancer), while the other half was told that it was 75 %. Consistent with the theoretical model, we find that the VSCC is larger in the former group. The ratio between the VSCC of the two groups is approximately equal to the ratio between the conditional cancer mortality risks implied by the survey’s survival rates, suggesting that the VSCC is proportional to conditional cancer mortality. Our findings have important policy implications in the context of regulations that focus on pollutants linked to cancers with different chances of survival.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"53 3","pages":"93 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72629182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
BCA volume 14 issue 2 Cover and Front matter BCA第14卷第2期封面和封面问题
4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2023.36
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
此内容的摘要不可用,因此提供了预览。当您可以访问此内容时,可以通过“保存PDF”操作按钮获得完整的PDF。
{"title":"BCA volume 14 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.36","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135445656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Seven Recommendations for Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 关于温室气体排放定价的七项建议
4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2023.31
Arthur G. Fraas, John D. Graham, Kerry M. Krutilla, Randall Lutter, Jason F. Shogren, Linda Thunström, W. Kip Viscusi
Abstract The social cost of greenhouse gases is important in many regulatory impact analyses. However, calculations of the social cost of greenhouse gases are highly complex and periodically revisited. We offer seven recommendations to improve current estimates. These include recommendations to use both country-level and global measures of the social cost of greenhouse gases, to use country-specific values for monetizing climate damages, to represent uncertainties by reporting distributions instead of using only central values, and to conduct a temporal distributional analysis that shows the magnitudes of climate damages across generations. We also provide recommendations for the discount rates that should be used when estimating the social cost of greenhouse gases, and the appropriate discount rates for regulatory impact analyses that include the social cost of greenhouse gases.
温室气体的社会成本是许多监管影响分析的重要内容。然而,对温室气体的社会成本的计算是非常复杂的,需要定期重新审视。我们提出了七条建议来改进目前的估算。这些建议包括:同时使用国家层面和全球层面的温室气体社会成本测量方法;使用国家特定值将气候损害货币化;通过报告分布而不是仅使用中心值来表示不确定性;以及进行时间分布分析,显示跨代气候损害的程度。我们还提供了在估计温室气体的社会成本时应该使用的贴现率的建议,以及包括温室气体的社会成本在内的监管影响分析的适当贴现率。
{"title":"Seven Recommendations for Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions","authors":"Arthur G. Fraas, John D. Graham, Kerry M. Krutilla, Randall Lutter, Jason F. Shogren, Linda Thunström, W. Kip Viscusi","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.31","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The social cost of greenhouse gases is important in many regulatory impact analyses. However, calculations of the social cost of greenhouse gases are highly complex and periodically revisited. We offer seven recommendations to improve current estimates. These include recommendations to use both country-level and global measures of the social cost of greenhouse gases, to use country-specific values for monetizing climate damages, to represent uncertainties by reporting distributions instead of using only central values, and to conduct a temporal distributional analysis that shows the magnitudes of climate damages across generations. We also provide recommendations for the discount rates that should be used when estimating the social cost of greenhouse gases, and the appropriate discount rates for regulatory impact analyses that include the social cost of greenhouse gases.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136367566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Discounting in Natural Resource Damage Assessment 自然资源损害评估中的贴现
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-11-22 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.24
Eric J. Horsch, D. Phaneuf, C. Giguere, Jason H. Murray, Cameron Duff, Cole Kroninger
Abstract The goal of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is to compensate the public for losses to natural resources from past or ongoing hazardous releases, including losses that may persist into the future. Compensation is delivered in the form of restoration projects. Resolving NRDA liability requires balancing losses and restoration benefits over multiple decades and converting them into a present value for calculating appropriate damages. For the past two decades, NRDA practitioners have used a real discount rate of 3 % to convert losses and benefits to a present value equivalent. That rate was based, in part, on real historical yields on risk-free debt (e.g., the real rate of return on 3-month Treasury bills). Declining interest rates on risk-free debt in recent years has led to suggestions to reexamine the historical consensus discount rate. This paper reviews two alternative conceptual paradigms for selecting a discount rate in NRDA cases: the social rate of time preference and discount rates for tort cases. We summarize historical data for empirically implementing the two paradigms and discuss the ramifications of the different options. Based on our review, we suggest maintaining the 3 % consensus as a practical solution to a range of empirical candidates within the two conceptual paradigms.
自然资源损害评估(NRDA)的目标是补偿公众因过去或正在进行的危险释放而对自然资源造成的损失,包括可能持续到未来的损失。补偿以修复工程的形式进行。解决NRDA责任需要平衡数十年的损失和恢复收益,并将其转换为计算适当损害的现值。在过去的二十年里,NRDA从业者使用3%的实际贴现率将损失和收益转换为现值等价物。该利率部分基于无风险债券的实际历史收益率(例如,3个月期国库券的实际收益率)。近年来,无风险债券的利率不断下降,导致有人建议重新审视历史共识贴现率。本文回顾了两种选择NRDA案件折现率的概念范式:社会时间偏好率和侵权案件折现率。我们总结了经验上实现这两种范式的历史数据,并讨论了不同选择的后果。基于我们的回顾,我们建议将3%的共识作为两个概念范式中一系列经验候选者的实际解决方案。
{"title":"Discounting in Natural Resource Damage Assessment","authors":"Eric J. Horsch, D. Phaneuf, C. Giguere, Jason H. Murray, Cameron Duff, Cole Kroninger","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.24","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The goal of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is to compensate the public for losses to natural resources from past or ongoing hazardous releases, including losses that may persist into the future. Compensation is delivered in the form of restoration projects. Resolving NRDA liability requires balancing losses and restoration benefits over multiple decades and converting them into a present value for calculating appropriate damages. For the past two decades, NRDA practitioners have used a real discount rate of 3 % to convert losses and benefits to a present value equivalent. That rate was based, in part, on real historical yields on risk-free debt (e.g., the real rate of return on 3-month Treasury bills). Declining interest rates on risk-free debt in recent years has led to suggestions to reexamine the historical consensus discount rate. This paper reviews two alternative conceptual paradigms for selecting a discount rate in NRDA cases: the social rate of time preference and discount rates for tort cases. We summarize historical data for empirically implementing the two paradigms and discuss the ramifications of the different options. Based on our review, we suggest maintaining the 3 % consensus as a practical solution to a range of empirical candidates within the two conceptual paradigms.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"26 1","pages":"141 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89162943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Paying a Premium for “Green Steel”: Paying for an Illusion? 为“绿色钢铁”付费:为错觉付费?
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.20
P. Johansson, B. Kriström
Abstract The iron and steel industry generates around 10 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk of the emissions originates from the iron ore reduction. In this reduction, coal is used as a reagent. Steelmakers could switch to hydrogen-based direct reduction using hydrogen instead of coal as a reagent to reduce iron ore to pig iron. This would eliminate the CO2 emissions from the equivalent process in a traditional blast furnace. However, the process requires massive amounts of electricity. This paper looks at the economics of such a switch to “green steel.” We assess a marginal increase in the production of a hypothetical green steelmaker. We also undertake an investment appraisal of a green plant, based on an ongoing installation in Northern Sweden, but also briefly consider a possible/planned investment in the US. This appraisal is complemented by computing the survival function for the net present value in a systematic sensitivity analysis. It seems highly unlikely that a green steel plant can be socially profitable. If the green plant displaces conventional steel produced within the European Union’s cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, total emissions remain more or less unaffected; permits and emissions are simply reshuffled. Hence, if end-users of green steel pay a premium, they might pay for an illusion.
钢铁行业产生的温室气体约占全球排放量的10%。大部分的排放来自铁矿石的减少。在这个还原过程中,煤被用作试剂。钢铁制造商可以改用氢基直接还原技术,用氢代替煤作为试剂,将铁矿石还原为生铁。这将消除传统高炉等效过程中的二氧化碳排放。然而,这个过程需要大量的电力。本文着眼于这种转向“绿色钢铁”的经济学。我们对一个假设的绿色钢铁制造商的产量的边际增长进行评估。我们还根据瑞典北部正在进行的装置对绿色工厂进行投资评估,同时也简要考虑在美国的可能/计划投资。这种评估是通过计算系统敏感性分析中净现值的生存函数来补充的。绿色钢铁厂似乎不太可能产生社会效益。如果绿色工厂取代了欧盟温室气体总量控制与交易体系内生产的传统钢铁,总排放量或多或少不会受到影响;许可和排放只是重新洗牌。因此,如果绿色钢铁的最终用户支付额外费用,他们可能会为一种错觉买单。
{"title":"Paying a Premium for “Green Steel”: Paying for an Illusion?","authors":"P. Johansson, B. Kriström","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The iron and steel industry generates around 10 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk of the emissions originates from the iron ore reduction. In this reduction, coal is used as a reagent. Steelmakers could switch to hydrogen-based direct reduction using hydrogen instead of coal as a reagent to reduce iron ore to pig iron. This would eliminate the CO2 emissions from the equivalent process in a traditional blast furnace. However, the process requires massive amounts of electricity. This paper looks at the economics of such a switch to “green steel.” We assess a marginal increase in the production of a hypothetical green steelmaker. We also undertake an investment appraisal of a green plant, based on an ongoing installation in Northern Sweden, but also briefly consider a possible/planned investment in the US. This appraisal is complemented by computing the survival function for the net present value in a systematic sensitivity analysis. It seems highly unlikely that a green steel plant can be socially profitable. If the green plant displaces conventional steel produced within the European Union’s cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, total emissions remain more or less unaffected; permits and emissions are simply reshuffled. Hence, if end-users of green steel pay a premium, they might pay for an illusion.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"6 1","pages":"383 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77079942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk 降低心脏病风险的风险感知、学习和支付意愿
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-10-28 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.14
M. Dickie, W. Adamowicz, S. Gerking, Marcella Veronesi
Abstract The paper investigates the validity of individual perceptions of heart disease risks, and examines how information and risk perceptions affect marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) to reduce risk, using data from a stated preference survey. Results indicate that risk perceptions held before receiving risk information are plausibly related to objective risk factors and reflect individual-specific information not found in aggregate measures of objective risk. After receiving information, individuals’ updates of prior risk assessments are broadly consistent with Bayesian learning. Perceived heart disease risks thus satisfy construct validity and provide a valid basis for inferring MWTP to reduce risk. Consistent estimators of the relationship of MWTP to endogenously perceived risk are developed. Estimating MWTP based on objective rather than subjective risks causes misleading inferences about benefits of risk reduction. An empirical case study shows that estimated benefits may be as much as 60–98 % higher when estimated using individuals’ heterogeneous perceptions of risk than when using aggregate estimates of objective risk. The main contributions include assessing the validity of risk perceptions and their updating, consistently estimating the relationship between MWTP and endogenously perceived risk, and demonstrating the importance of employing risk perception information for accurate benefit measurement.
摘要:本文研究了个体对心脏病风险认知的有效性,并利用一项声明偏好调查的数据,研究了信息和风险认知如何影响降低风险的边际支付意愿(MWTP)。结果表明,在接受风险信息之前所持有的风险感知似乎与客观风险因素有关,并反映了客观风险总体度量中未发现的个人特定信息。个体在接收到信息后,对先前风险评估的更新大体上与贝叶斯学习一致。因此,感知心脏病风险满足结构效度,并为推断MWTP以降低风险提供了有效依据。对MWTP与内源性感知风险的关系进行了一致的估计。基于客观风险而不是主观风险来估计MWTP会导致对降低风险的好处产生误导性的推断。一项实证案例研究表明,与使用客观风险的总体估计值相比,使用个体对风险的异质感知进行估计时,估计的收益可能高出60 - 98%。主要贡献包括评估风险感知的有效性及其更新,一致地估计MWTP与内源性感知风险之间的关系,并证明利用风险感知信息进行准确的利益测量的重要性。
{"title":"Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk","authors":"M. Dickie, W. Adamowicz, S. Gerking, Marcella Veronesi","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper investigates the validity of individual perceptions of heart disease risks, and examines how information and risk perceptions affect marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) to reduce risk, using data from a stated preference survey. Results indicate that risk perceptions held before receiving risk information are plausibly related to objective risk factors and reflect individual-specific information not found in aggregate measures of objective risk. After receiving information, individuals’ updates of prior risk assessments are broadly consistent with Bayesian learning. Perceived heart disease risks thus satisfy construct validity and provide a valid basis for inferring MWTP to reduce risk. Consistent estimators of the relationship of MWTP to endogenously perceived risk are developed. Estimating MWTP based on objective rather than subjective risks causes misleading inferences about benefits of risk reduction. An empirical case study shows that estimated benefits may be as much as 60–98 % higher when estimated using individuals’ heterogeneous perceptions of risk than when using aggregate estimates of objective risk. The main contributions include assessing the validity of risk perceptions and their updating, consistently estimating the relationship between MWTP and endogenously perceived risk, and demonstrating the importance of employing risk perception information for accurate benefit measurement.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"40 1","pages":"363 - 382"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90725616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Three Misconceptions about Federal Regulation 关于联邦监管的三个误解
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-10-04 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.13
P. McLaughlin, C. Mulligan
Abstract Three common misconceptions persist about federal regulations. The first misconception is that most new regulations concern the environment, but in fact, only a small minority of regulatory flows are environmental. The second misconception is that regulators offer reasonable justifications and quantitative evidence for the majority of regulations. However, quantitative estimates rarely appear in published rules, negating the impression given by executive orders and Office of Management and Budget guidance, which require cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and clearly articulate sound economic principles for conducting CBA. Environmental rules have relatively higher-quality CBAs, at least by the standards of other federal rules. The third misconception, which is particularly relevant to the historic regulations promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that regulatory costs are primarily clerical, rather than opportunity or resource costs.
摘要:关于联邦法规,有三种常见的误解。第一个误解是,大多数新法规都与环境有关,但事实上,只有一小部分法规是与环境有关的。第二个误解是,监管机构为大多数监管规定提供了合理的理由和定量证据。然而,定量估计很少出现在公布的规则中,否定了行政命令和管理和预算办公室指导给人的印象,这需要成本效益分析(CBA),并清楚地阐明进行CBA的合理经济原则。至少以其他联邦法规的标准来看,环境法规的cba质量相对较高。第三个误解与COVID-19大流行期间颁布的历史性法规特别相关,即监管成本主要是文书成本,而不是机会或资源成本。
{"title":"Three Misconceptions about Federal Regulation","authors":"P. McLaughlin, C. Mulligan","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.13","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Three common misconceptions persist about federal regulations. The first misconception is that most new regulations concern the environment, but in fact, only a small minority of regulatory flows are environmental. The second misconception is that regulators offer reasonable justifications and quantitative evidence for the majority of regulations. However, quantitative estimates rarely appear in published rules, negating the impression given by executive orders and Office of Management and Budget guidance, which require cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and clearly articulate sound economic principles for conducting CBA. Environmental rules have relatively higher-quality CBAs, at least by the standards of other federal rules. The third misconception, which is particularly relevant to the historic regulations promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that regulatory costs are primarily clerical, rather than opportunity or resource costs.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"7 1","pages":"287 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76508759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How is the U.S. Pricing Carbon? How Could We Price Carbon? 美国是如何为碳定价的?我们如何为碳定价?
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.19
Joseph E. Aldy, D. Burtraw, C. Fischer, M. Fowlie, Roberton C. Williams, M. Cropper
Abstract Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed – or otherwise priced – to provide incentives for their reduction. The USA does not have a federal carbon tax; however, many state and federal programs to reduce carbon emissions effectively price carbon – for example, through cap-and-trade systems or regulations. There are also programs that subsidize reductions in carbon emissions. At the 2022 meetings of the American Economic Association, the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis brought together five well-known economists – Joe Aldy, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Meredith Fowlie, and Rob Williams – to discuss how the USA does, in fact, price carbon and how it could price carbon. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel. This paper summarizes their remarks.
几十年来,经济学家一直建议对二氧化碳和其他温室气体征税——或者以其他方式定价——以激励减排。美国没有联邦碳税;然而,许多减少碳排放的州和联邦计划有效地为碳定价——例如,通过限额与交易系统或法规。还有一些项目为减少碳排放提供补贴。在美国经济协会2022年的会议上,效益成本分析协会召集了五位知名经济学家——乔·阿尔迪、达拉斯·伯特劳、卡罗琳·菲舍尔、梅雷迪思·福利和罗布·威廉姆斯——讨论美国实际上是如何为碳定价的,以及如何为碳定价。莫林·克罗珀主持了该小组。本文对他们的评论进行了总结。
{"title":"How is the U.S. Pricing Carbon? How Could We Price Carbon?","authors":"Joseph E. Aldy, D. Burtraw, C. Fischer, M. Fowlie, Roberton C. Williams, M. Cropper","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed – or otherwise priced – to provide incentives for their reduction. The USA does not have a federal carbon tax; however, many state and federal programs to reduce carbon emissions effectively price carbon – for example, through cap-and-trade systems or regulations. There are also programs that subsidize reductions in carbon emissions. At the 2022 meetings of the American Economic Association, the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis brought together five well-known economists – Joe Aldy, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Meredith Fowlie, and Rob Williams – to discuss how the USA does, in fact, price carbon and how it could price carbon. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel. This paper summarizes their remarks.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"28 1","pages":"310 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84544471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
The Benefits and Costs of a Child Allowance 子女津贴的好处和费用
IF 3.4 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2022-09-23 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2022.15
I. Garfinkel, Laurel Sariscsany, Elizabeth Ananat, Sophie Collyer, R. Hartley, Buyi Wang, Christopher Wimer
Abstract This article conducts a benefit-cost analysis of a child allowance. Through a systematic literature review of the highest quality evidence on the causal effects of cash and near-cash transfers, this article produces core estimates on the benefits and costs per child and per adult of increasing household income by $1000, which can be used for any cash or near-cash program that increases household income. We then apply these estimates to three child allowance proposals, with the main proposal converting the $2000 Child Tax Credit in the federal income tax code into a fully refundable and more generous child allowance of $3600 per child ages 0–5 and $3000 per child ages 6–17, as enacted for 1 year in the American Rescue Plan. Aggregate costs and benefits are estimated via micro-simulation. Our estimates indicate that making the $2000 Child Tax Credit fully refundable and increasing benefits to $3000/$3600 would cost $97 billion per year and generate social benefits of $929 billion per year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the results are robust to alternative assumptions and that each of the three child allowance proposals produces a very strong to an extraordinarily strong return for the U.S. population.
摘要本文对儿童津贴进行了收益-成本分析。通过对有关现金和近现金转移的因果效应的最高质量证据的系统文献综述,本文对每个儿童和每个成年人增加1000美元家庭收入的收益和成本进行了核心估计,这可以用于任何增加家庭收入的现金或近现金计划。然后,我们将这些估计应用于三项儿童津贴提案,其中主要提案将联邦所得税法中的2000美元儿童税收抵免转换为完全可退还且更慷慨的儿童津贴,即每个0-5岁儿童3600美元和每个6-17岁儿童3000美元,这是美国救援计划中颁布的为期一年的儿童津贴。通过微观模拟估算了总成本和收益。我们的估计表明,使2000美元的儿童税收抵免完全退还,并将福利增加到3000美元/ 3600美元,每年将花费970亿美元,每年产生9290亿美元的社会福利。敏感性分析表明,结果对其他假设是稳健的,并且三种儿童津贴建议中的每一种都为美国人口带来了非常强大到非常强大的回报。
{"title":"The Benefits and Costs of a Child Allowance","authors":"I. Garfinkel, Laurel Sariscsany, Elizabeth Ananat, Sophie Collyer, R. Hartley, Buyi Wang, Christopher Wimer","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article conducts a benefit-cost analysis of a child allowance. Through a systematic literature review of the highest quality evidence on the causal effects of cash and near-cash transfers, this article produces core estimates on the benefits and costs per child and per adult of increasing household income by $1000, which can be used for any cash or near-cash program that increases household income. We then apply these estimates to three child allowance proposals, with the main proposal converting the $2000 Child Tax Credit in the federal income tax code into a fully refundable and more generous child allowance of $3600 per child ages 0–5 and $3000 per child ages 6–17, as enacted for 1 year in the American Rescue Plan. Aggregate costs and benefits are estimated via micro-simulation. Our estimates indicate that making the $2000 Child Tax Credit fully refundable and increasing benefits to $3000/$3600 would cost $97 billion per year and generate social benefits of $929 billion per year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the results are robust to alternative assumptions and that each of the three child allowance proposals produces a very strong to an extraordinarily strong return for the U.S. population.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"41 1","pages":"335 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85486817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
期刊
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1