Cost-Benefit Analysis

Economist argues that energy-efficiency regulations are riddled with problems and espouses their elimination.

Scholar argues that regulators will have difficulty applying cost-benefit analysis to mandatory GMO labeling.

Public Citizen and the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards convened panels of regulatory experts.

Experts argue that the number and cost of regulations sharply rose in 2015—at a rate that has held steady in 2016.

What is the cost of emitting soot into the atmosphere? The answer is unclear, yet it plays an important role in policymaking.

Experts argue that Donald Trump’s focus on jobs and worker impacts instead of the application of the net social benefits test is imprudent.

Cost-benefit analysis is the most preferable form of analysis, and it should continue to be employed for important regulatory decisions.

Recent Court decisions have not created a presumption in favor of formal cost-benefit analysis.

Previously published essay on The Regulatory Review sparks debate over the role that cost-benefit analysis should play in regulatory decision-making.

Cost-benefit analysis has become a routinized part of policymaking. Probing what justifies this methodology helps us to see how it might be improved.

Earlier and less burdensome regulatory impact analyses would lead to more transparent, better regulatory decisions.

When a regulation’s benefits exceed its costs, simplicity and interdisciplinary processes are essential to reducing capture.