{"title":"废除管制的经济学","authors":"A. Krupnick, A. Fraas, Justine Huetteman","doi":"10.1086/713076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the Trump administration’s emphasis on repealing regulations, this article discusses issues related to conducting benefit–cost analyses of regulatory repeal. In particular, the article develops analyses of the repeal and modification of six major rules issued by the Obama administration and compares them to analyses conducted by the Trump administration. The results illustrate the sensitivity of these analyses to several key analytical components, including the social cost of methane emissions and the upper-bound estimates of catastrophic accidents, and also illustrate that the Trump administration’s ranking of the six rules using its preferred metric—the cost savings of repeal—differs from a ranking that uses net benefits. Recommendations are provided for improving regulatory impact analyses, including those conducted for regulatory repeal.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/713076","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Economics of Regulatory Repeal\",\"authors\":\"A. Krupnick, A. Fraas, Justine Huetteman\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/713076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given the Trump administration’s emphasis on repealing regulations, this article discusses issues related to conducting benefit–cost analyses of regulatory repeal. In particular, the article develops analyses of the repeal and modification of six major rules issued by the Obama administration and compares them to analyses conducted by the Trump administration. The results illustrate the sensitivity of these analyses to several key analytical components, including the social cost of methane emissions and the upper-bound estimates of catastrophic accidents, and also illustrate that the Trump administration’s ranking of the six rules using its preferred metric—the cost savings of repeal—differs from a ranking that uses net benefits. Recommendations are provided for improving regulatory impact analyses, including those conducted for regulatory repeal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/713076\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/713076\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/713076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Given the Trump administration’s emphasis on repealing regulations, this article discusses issues related to conducting benefit–cost analyses of regulatory repeal. In particular, the article develops analyses of the repeal and modification of six major rules issued by the Obama administration and compares them to analyses conducted by the Trump administration. The results illustrate the sensitivity of these analyses to several key analytical components, including the social cost of methane emissions and the upper-bound estimates of catastrophic accidents, and also illustrate that the Trump administration’s ranking of the six rules using its preferred metric—the cost savings of repeal—differs from a ranking that uses net benefits. Recommendations are provided for improving regulatory impact analyses, including those conducted for regulatory repeal.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy fills the gap between traditional academic journals and the general interest press by providing a widely accessible yet scholarly source for the latest thinking on environmental economics and related policy. The Review publishes symposia, articles, and regular features that contribute to one or more of the following goals: •to identify and synthesize lessons learned from recent and ongoing environmental economics research; •to provide economic analysis of environmental policy issues; •to promote the sharing of ideas and perspectives among the various sub-fields of environmental economics;