Paul R. Portney

Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?

Benefit-cost analysis can play an important role in legislative and regulatory policy debates on protecting and improving health, safety, and the natural environment. Although formal benefit-cost analysis should not be viewed as either necessary or sufficient for designing sensible public policy, it can provide an exceptionally useful framework for consistently organizing disparate information, and in this way, it can greatly improve the process and, hence, the outcome of policy analysis. If properly done, benefit-cost analysis can be of great help to agencies participating in the development of environmental, health, and safety regulations, and it can likewise be useful in evaluating agency decision-making and in shaping statutes.

Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age

In surveys of 3,000 households, we have found that people attach less importance to saving lives in the future than to saving lives today, and less importance to saving older persons than to saving younger persons. For the median respondent, saving six people in 25 years is equivalent to saving one person today, while for a horizon of 100 years, 45 persons must be saved for every person saved today. The age of those saved also matters; however, respondents do not weight lives saved by number of life-years remaining: For the median respondent, saving one 20-year-old is equivalent to saving seven 60-year-olds.

The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making

This paper examines the EPAs decision to cancel or continue the registrations of cancer-causing pesticides that went through the special review process between 1975 and 1989. Despite claims to the contrary, our analysis indicates that the EPA indeed balanced risks against benefits in regulating pesticides: Risks to human health or the environment increased the likelihood that a particular pesticide use was canceled by the EPA; at the same time, the larger the benefits associated with a particular use, the lower was the likelihood of cancellation. Intervention by special-interest groups was also important in the regulatory process. Comments by grower organizations significantly reduced the probability of cancellation, whereas comments by environmental advocacy groups increased the probability of cancellation. Our analysis suggests that the EPA is fully capable of weighing benefits and costs when regulating environmental hazards; however, the implicit value placed on health risks--

The political economy of environmental policy

35 million per applicator cancer case avoided--may be considered high by some persons.

Determining Benefits and Costs for Future Generations

This paper provides a review and assessment of the extensive literature on the political determination of environmental regulation. A promising theoretical literature has emerged relatively recently that provides models of the political interaction of government with various interest groups in the setting of environmental standards and the choice of regulatory instruments. A large empirical literature supports such models, finding evidence of the influence of interest groups but also evidence that net social benefits are often an important determinant of environmental policy choices. We then take up the issue of environmental federalism and the large and growing theoretical literature that addresses the competitive “race to the bottom.” The paper concludes with a brief look at the evolution of environmental policy and finds that economics has come to play a growing role both in the setting of standards for environmental quality and in the design of regulatory measures.

The (Not So) New Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Perspective

The United States and others should consider adopting a different approach to estimating costs and benefits in light of uncertainty. In economic project analysis, the rate at which future benefits and costs are discounted relative to current values often determines whether a project passes the benefit-cost test. This is especially true of projects with long time horizons, such as those to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Whether the benefits of climate policies, which can last for centuries, outweigh the costs, many of which are borne today, is especially sensitive to the rate at which future benefits are discounted. This is also true of other policies, e.g., affecting nuclear waste disposal or the construction of long-lived infrastructure.

Should governments use a declining discount rate in project analysis

There now exists a large and growing literature on what has come to be known as “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). The largest strand of this literature is devoted to studies that attempt to determine whether CSR is associated with superior financial performance for those firms that engage in it. This article first provides a definition of CSR that makes it possible to talk about it in a concrete way; it then identifies the ways in which CSR might lead to superior financial performance; next it reviews the empirical evidence bearing on this hypothesis; finally, the paper concludes by asking whether this much-hyped phenomenon is really that new after all and suggests that normative judgments about CSR are more complicated than one might think.

Regulatory Review of Environmental Policy: The Potential Role of Health-Health Analysis

Should governments use a discount rate that declines over time when evaluating the future benefits and costs of public projects? The argument for using a declining discount rate (DDR) is simple: if the discount rates that will be applied in the future are uncertain but positively correlated, and if the analyst can assign probabilities to these discount rates, then the result will be a declining schedule of certainty-equivalent discount rates. There is a growing empirical literature that estimates models of long-term interest rates and uses them to forecast the DDR schedule. However, this literature has been criticized because it lacks a connection to the theory of project evaluation. In benefit-cost analysis, the net benefits of a project in year t (in consumption units) are discounted to the present at the rate at which society would trade consumption in year t for consumption in the present. With simplifying assumptions, this leads to the Ramsey discounting formula, which results in a declining certainty-equivalent discount rate if the rate of growth in consumption is uncertain and if shocks to consumption are correlated over time. We conclude that the arguments in favor of a DDR are compelling and thus merit serious consideration by regulatory agencies in the United States. (JEL: D61)

Discounting and the Evaluation of Lifesaving Programs

Health-health analysis (HHA) posits a seemingly unassailable criterion for regulatory assessment: policies intended to protect human health ought to exhibit positive health benefits. Despite the apparent logic of this criterion, it is important to ask whether it would aid in the quest for better public policies. In the context of environmental issues, we find that HHA can be useful by reminding us that it is thenet health impact of a proposed regulation that can be important. However, we also find that in most applications the health impacts of regulatory compliance costs are unlikely to be significant. Conventional benefit-cost analysis ought to remain the principal tool of economic assessment of environmental laws and regulations.

How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an Intergenerational Context? The Views of an Expert Panel

The evaluation of lifesaving programs whose benefits extend into the future involves two discounting issues. The intragenerational discounting problem is how to express, in age-j dollars, reductions in an individuals conditional probability of dying at some future age k. Having discounted future lifesaving benefits to the beginning of each individuals life, one is faced with the problem of discounting these benefits to the present—the intergenerational discounting problem. We discuss both problems from the perspectives of cost-benefit and costeffectiveness analyses. These principles are then applied to lifesaving programs that involve a latency period.