The new White House “Frontiers” report, Advancing the Frontiers of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Progress On Federal Priorities, Insights for the Research Community, and Emerging Topics was published October 16th, 2024, by the Subcommittee on Frontiers of Benefit-Cost Analysis (SFBCA), and Committee on the Environment of the National Science and Technology Council. This follows the inaugural December 2023 White House Press Release: Advancing the Frontiers in Benefit-Cost Analysis, and the accompanying report, Advancing the Frontiers of Benefit Cost Analysis: Federal Priorities and Directions for Future Research, January 2023 White House Fact Sheet: National Strategy to Put Nature on the Nation’s Balance Sheet, and Full Report on developing statistics for environmental-economic decisions. These follow a memorandum issued by President Biden to federal agencies, directing them to monetize their analytical approaches (Modernizing Regulatory Review or Executive Order 14094, Jan. 26, 2021). 

High-Level Summary

The 2024 SFBCA “Frontiers" Report summarizes progress on the five focal areas (effects) identified in the 2023 report that are currently difficult to monetize or quantify in analyses of agency regulations, projects, programs, or other actions; highlights ways for the research community to engage with the policy process and provide policy-relevant science and economics for benefit-cost analyses; and identifies additional frontiers topics.

The 2024 CBA Forum, held by The Economic Society of Australia New South Wales (ESANSW) earlier this year, brought together some of Australia's brightest minds in economic analysis, policy evaluation, and decision-making. The presentations - a mix of keynotes, panel discussions, and case studies - provided updates on state and national guidelines together with sessions on: Health, Justice, Water, Transport, Environment, Energy, First Nations and Carbon values.

The recordings of the forum are now freely available here. Whether you’re looking to deepen your understanding of CBA techniques or catch up on the discussions you missed, these recordings provide valuable access to the forum’s wealth of knowledge.

We’re thrilled to announce the release of the final group of papers from the upcoming Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis (JBCA) special issue on the revised Circular A-4. With this release, the full collection of comments submitted by former SBCA presidents and JBCA editors is now available as working papers on the SBCA website.

This concludes our series of early releases, though the official JBCA special issue will follow next year. We hope these papers have provided valuable insights, and we look forward to continuing the conversation around the revised Circular A-4.

We are excited to share the third group of papers in our ongoing series related to the JBCA special issue on Circular A-4. These newly released articles provide further insights and analysis on the Biden administration’s revisions to Circular A-4, expanding the dialogue on key policy impacts.

These working papers are available now on the SBCA website here. We encourage our members to review these new additions and engage with the content as part of this critical ongoing discussion. Our final group of papers will be released soon, completing this early preview of the special issue.

We’re pleased to release the second group of papers from the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis (JBCA) special issue on Circular A-4. This next set of articles delves even deeper into the implications of the Biden administration’s revisions to the guidelines.

As with the first group, these papers are available as working papers on the SBCA website here. Each piece continues to reflect a combination of peer review and public input, offering unique perspectives from leaders in the benefit-cost analysis community. Be sure to explore this latest set of contributions and check back soon for the next release.

We’re excited to share the first group of papers from the upcoming special issue of the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis (JBCA) on the Biden administration’s revised Circular A-4. This first set of papers includes comments from former SBCA presidents, offering a mix of peer-reviewed and public insights on the policy changes.

Each article has been published on the SBCA website as a working paper, giving our members early access to this important research. Access the first group of papers here, and check back periodically for future installments as we continue to release more papers in this series. These papers are part of an ongoing JBCA project, and while they will appear in a future issue, we are thrilled to highlight them now.

As a community of practice, we have the opportunity and even the responsibility to provide input during comment periods for federal and state agencies rule making prior to becoming entrenched in agency policy and application tools. One of these opportunities is currently open in the Federal Register for the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Army has broad responsibility and authority to build, maintain, enhance, and manage flood protection and reservoir projects across the country. The Army has been using a form of benefits exceeding costs test since the introduction of their first projects in the early 1900’s. The 2020 Water Resources Development Act instigated a re-evaluation of what is included in the army’s efficiency analysis and references many of the issues addressed at the last several SBCA conferences. Social and environmental costs are being discussed and how these and other concept can and should be quantified, qualified, and considered in alternatives analysis and final funding processes. This (SBCA) community of practice’s expertise on these topics, as well as the technical mechanics of BCA, valuation methods, and social welfare optimization make each of you a valuable contributor for the army as they collect comments and information to help them formulate practices and rules. Please consider reviewing the current solicitation for comments to ensure, those that know and do, are providing input, and that as a community we are helping guide the framework of the ecosystem within which many, with less experience and training, will be asked to participate on the project level.

Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2024. Learn more>> or contact Duane.

The proposed revisions to Circular A-4 recently put forward by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs include guidance on applying what are referred to as "distributional weights." Costs and benefits to households and individuals with lower income are multiplied by a number greater than one, while those to households and individuals with higher income are multiplied by a number less than one. In the public comments on the proposed revisions, a number of criticisms of distributional weighting have been put forth, including:

• Distributional weighting conflates information about welfare with information about equity, undermining transparency.
• Distributional weighting introduces subjective value judgments into BCA;
• Distributional weighting puts a finger on the scale.

In our paper (Acland and Greenberg, 2023), we explicitly recommend that distributional weighting of the sort presented in the proposed revisions be adopted by federal agencies. As such, we feel that some clarification of our position is in order, in the hope that these criticisms may be better understood and laid to rest.

Regulations to improve air quality, save energy, or reduce climate risks account for the largest share of benefits and costs of the US regulatory program.  We address the economic methods for evaluating this class of regulations in “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Air Pollution, Energy, and Climate Regulations.  This work was recently published as open access in the Cambridge Core Element Series in public economics. The methods considered are relevant for OMB’s ongoing revision of BCA guidance (Circulars A-4 and A-94), and EPA’s proposed changes for measuring the economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  

The work compares and contrasts Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in the U.S. and Europe, and addresses five methodology issues: the estimation of costs, the estimation of benefits, discounting methods, distributional analysis, and the evaluation of less and more fundamental uncertainty. The intended audience is regulators and other constituencies interested in the nexus between scholarship and practice, analysts in government agencies and research organizations, and academic scholars and their graduate students.

Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed to provide incentives for their reduction. The United States 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 United States does, in fact, price carbon already and how it could do so more effectively. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel.

Meredith Fowlie discussed problems that a carbon tax would present if levied on the US energy sector. As Fowlie pointed out, setting a carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon assumes that the prices of carbon-intensive goods reflect suppliers’ marginal private costs. In many US states, however, regulated retail electricity and natural gas prices exceed marginal supply costs—in the case of electricity, sometimes by a factor of two to three. Electricity prices have risen to cover the costs of upgrading generation, transmission, and distribution systems and making the grid more resilient to extreme weather events. Adding a carbon tax to these prices would slow the pace of electrification for the clean energy transition and would burden low-income households. Fowlie discussed these issues and suggested that retail rate reform is needed.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case was about whether EPA in the Clean Power Plan could set the carbon emissions standard for existing power plants at a level that would require the power plants to reduce coal use and shift to or subsidize natural gas or renewable-energy electricity generation (referred to as “generation shifting”). But the focus was not on whether such a level would be benefit-cost justified—but rather on whether the agency was allowed to set a standard requires generation shifting for compliance under this provision of the Clean Air Act. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts applied the “major questions” doctrine and concluded that EPA could not do this despite reasonable textual support for it; on issues like this one, which have “vast economic and political significance,” Congress must clearly authorize an agency to act in this way.

It is tempting to conclude that this decision about statutory interpretation has no relevance for benefit-cost analysis (BCA). But unfortunately, the decision contains language that suggests the Court misunderstands and disregards the value of using BCA in federal regulatory policy.

The primary way the Society pursues its mission to improve the theory and practice of benefit-cost analysis is by bringing people together, particularly during its annual meetings held each March. It is therefore very rewarding to note the recent increases in conference attendance and the associated increases in Society membership.

The first Society conference took place in 2008 and drew 79 people (Table 1). Attendance has grown steadily since then. In particular, the move to an online format in 2021 and 2022 resulted in very large increases in attendance, with attendance topping 600 people.

China is investing trillions of dollars in hundreds of projects, mainly infrastructures under its Belt and Road Initiative. This Initiative termed the BRI seeks to increase trade and contribute to global economic growth through increased connectivity, ports' development, building transport networks, pipelines, and other major infrastructures stretching from the northwestern part of China through Central Asia and Middle East through Africa and onwards to Europe.

We discuss some implications of this BRI in the context of new developments and key challenges it faces, not widely covered in the literature. Specifically, we identified three major areas which require immediate attention if any success of the BRI is to materialize. Such new areas may constitute the new research agenda for Cost-Benefit Analysis. One concern is the issue of NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) which essentially deals with siting decisions. The second concern has to do with applying Cost-Benefit Analysis to BRI countries and that is whether the framework of conventional Cost-Benefit Analysis remain the same as with applications in developed countries. And, thirdly, the arrival of competing initiatives from the United States and European Union on the BRI. We discuss some conflict resolution instruments to siting issues and the role of auctions. Highlights from the new Health and Digital Silk roads are also presented.

Hedonic property value regression is a leading technique for estimating how much consumers are willing to pay for nonmarket amenities. The prevailing style of estimation has evolved in recent years to incorporate insights from the “credibility revolution” in applied economics, with high expectations for data quality and econometric transparency. At the same time, recent research has improved our understanding of how parameters identified by quasi-experimental designs relate to welfare measures. This post describes an article summarizing modern best practices for developing credible hedonic research designs and valid welfare interpretations of the estimates. I wrote the article together with Kelly Bishop, Spencer Banzhaf, Kevin Boyle, Kathrine von Gravenitz, Jaren Pope, Kerry Smith, and Christopher Timmins. It was published in the Summer 2020 issue of the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy as part of a symposium on best practices for using revealed preference methods for nonmarket valuation of environmental quality. A 20-minute video summary is posted here.

There have been thousands of hedonic property value studies since the model was formalized in the 1970s and the pace has accelerated due to advances in data, econometrics, and computing power. The model’s enduring popularity is easy to understand. It starts with an intuitive premise that is economically plausible and empirically tractable. The model envisions buyers choosing properties based on housing attributes (e.g., indoor space, bedrooms, bathrooms) and on location-specific amenities (e.g., air quality, park proximity, education, flood risk). In the absence of market frictions, spatial variation in amenities can be expected to be capitalized into housing prices. When buyers face the resulting menu of price-attribute-amenity pairings, their purchase decisions can reveal their marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for each of the amenities. In principle, estimating MWTP is straightforward. In practice, several key modeling decisions must be made. These include defining the market, choosing appropriate measures of prices and amenities, selecting an econometric specification, and developing a research design that isolates exogenous variation in the amenity of interest.

Modernizing Regulatory Review, a Presidential memorandum published January 20, 2021, serves as a preface to the regulatory policies of the Biden Administration. As such, the memorandum complements three executive orders (E.O 13993: Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation; E.O. 13990: Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis; and E.O. 13979: Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking) that collectively rescind the previous administration’s regulatory policy. The regulatory policy foreshadowed in the memorandum and other documents, however, goes beyond rescinding the Trump administration’s program or restoring previous regulatory regimes.

Modernizing Regulatory Review calls for “improving and modernizing” regulatory review. Regulatory review includes, among other things, the benefit-cost and other analyses that Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) requires for all significant executive branch regulations; agencies include these analyses in the Regulatory Impact Analyses or Economic Analyses reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Regulatory review as now practiced has been in place for 28 years, although there have been occasional hiccups, such as in the last administration when -- most notably -- E.O. 13771 made regulatory costs primary and created new regulatory categories in parallel to existing measures.

What is important cannot be measured?
According to a famous expression¹, the most important things cannot be measured. This seemed also to be true for biodiversity in cost-benefit analysis, in particular for the impact on non-economic benefits of biodiversity. However, this is not true anymore, as for over a decade in the Netherlands a methodology known as biodiversity points is being applied for this purpose (see Bos and Ruijs, 2021). Biodiversity points are quite similar to the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) used for cost-effectiveness analysis of health care treatments. Biodiversity points provide a quality-adjusted measure of the changes in the quantity of biodiversity. It is not based on the preferences and information of consumers or citizens, but is based in a standardized way on the expert-opinion of ecologists. The unit of measurement is not dollars or euros but is the number of biodiversity points.

For many cost-benefit analyses (CBA), properly assessing the welfare effects of a policy measure on biodiversity is important. This does not only apply to CBA on conservation or stimulation of biodiversity, but also to CBA on other policy areas such as mobility, agriculture and water safety, as the policy measures in these policy areas often have impacts on biodiversity. For example, a new road connecting two cities through a forest is good for mobility but has also impact on the value of biodiversity. The value of the forest for various economic uses may increase due to the reduction in travel time for visitors but the non-use value, e.g. the existence value and the value for future generations of the forest and the biodiversity of its species, may be affected severely by fragmenting the forest and by increasing traffic, pollution and visitors.

The revelations of the Facebook Files have again focused public attention on the spread of misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence on Facebook. Youths across the globe use Facebook's Instagram and similar platforms to share violent videos. The question inevitably arises if authorities could use these platforms for violence prevention.

Bystander programs represent an established prevention measure. They motivate people to intervene in violent situations and teach the skills for safe and effective intervention. Studies suggest that bystander programs could reduce violent victimization and perpetration. However, face-to-face programs are cost-intensive and difficult to scale. Online programs face the challenge of reaching enough relevant participants. Social media can help on both counts. They allow reaching large audiences at relatively low cost and precisely addressing individuals at risk, i.e. micro-targeting.

This blog series is a partnership of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis On Balance blog and Dr. Zoë Plakias’ Spring 2021 Benefit-Cost Analysis (AEDECON 5330) class at The Ohio State University. Students interviewed experts in benefit-cost analysis to learn about what they do and why they do it. All interviews have been edited for brevity and clarity with the help of Dr. Plakias and are shared with the approval of the interviewer and interviewee.

• Expert: Dr. Charles Griffiths
• Interviewer: Katrina Hadley

Dr. Charles Griffiths is a Senior Economist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has also taught courses on benefit-cost analysis at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland and served as a Senior Economist for Environment, Energy and Natural Resources on the Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush administration.

Monetizing the impact of regulation in order to weigh its benefits against its costs is comme il faut in the US, see, e.g., a recent blog post by Dan Ackland in On Balance. In Sweden, this is not the case. Three laws govern the requirements for background analyses ahead of regulation in Sweden: National Budget Law, Authority Regulation, and Ordnance on impact assessment in regulation. These stipulate that consideration must be taken of costs to the state budget, and to firms, but not to individual citizens or the society as a whole. As a consequence, if a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is conducted ahead of environmental, energy, and climate policymaking (a big if), it is often of a very poor quality (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2020; Hammes, Nerhagen, & Fors, 2021).

 

Benefit-cost analysis, as usually practiced, sums the monetary values of effects on individuals. It can be justified by the potential compensation test: if the total monetary gain to the “winners” (those who gain from a policy) exceeds the total monetary loss to the “losers” (those who are harmed), the “winners” could (in principle) pay compensation to the “losers” so that everyone would judge herself better off with the combined policy and compensation than without. The idea is that by summing the net benefits across individuals, BCA measures “efficiency” or the size of the social pie, and that questions about distribution can be evaluated separately. Logically, policies that expand the social pie permit everyone to have a bigger slice; a smaller pie guarantees that at least some people get a smaller slice.