Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhose costs and benefits should count in cost‐benefit analysis (CBA)? This is an important practical question requiring answers for analysts because most government agencies offer only permissive or vague guidance. Drawing primarily on foundational CBA principles, we present a conceptual framework for specifying standing to answer three important boundary questions: Where? Who? What? First, a standing framework requires a definition of jurisdictional boundaries (the "where" question), whether national, subnational, or supranational. Second, a framework should be clear about which persons within the jurisdiction have standing (the "who" question). For example, should undocumented residents have standing? Third, the framework requires clarity on the standing of certain individual preferences (the "what" question), such as for harmfully addictive private or public goods that express "moral sentiments," or when choices do not maximize the value of consumption. We seek to provide guidance for CBA practice within this framework.

AbstractSome issues in the application of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) remain contentious. Although a strong conceptual case can be made for taking account of the marginal excess tax burden (METB) in conducting BCAs, it is usually excluded. Although a strong conceptual case can be made that BCA should not include distributional values, some analysts continue to advocate doing so. We discuss the cases for inclusion of the METB and the exclusion of distributional weights from what we refer to as "core" BCA, which we argue should be preserved as a protocol for assessing allocative efficiency. These issues are topical because a recent article in this journal recommends ignoring the METB on the grounds that desirable distributional effects offset its cost. We challenge the logic of this article and explain why it may encourage inefficient policies.