Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:31:58.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefit-Cost Analysis, Policy Impacts, and Congressional Hearings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2019

Deven Carlson ,
Joseph Ripberger ,
Wesley Wehde ,
Hank Jenkins-Smith ,
Carol Silva ,
Kuhika Gupta ,
Benjamin Jones  and
Robert Berrens
Deven Carlson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Joseph Ripberger
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Wesley Wehde
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Hank Jenkins-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Carol Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Kuhika Gupta
Affiliation:
Center for Risk and Crisis Management, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 73069, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Benjamin Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 87131, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Robert Berrens
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 87131, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methods for identifying relevant policy impacts for valuation in benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) have received relatively little attention in academic research, applied policy analyses, and guidance documents. In this paper, we develop a systematic, transparent, and replicable process that draws upon information contained in records of Congressional hearings to identify relevant policy impacts for valuation in a BCA. Our approach involves classifying – and subsequently analyzing – statements from witnesses testifying in Congressional hearings on the topic of the BCA. By using Congressional hearings as the basis for our approach, we are identifying potential policy impacts from information provided during the very process the BCA is intended to inform. However, because this approach is quite resource-intensive and would be somewhat burdensome for agencies to implement, it may be best applied in the academic realm, with identified impacts resulting from such applications then made available to agency personnel for potential inclusion in BCAs. Using the case of the Glen Canyon Dam, we demonstrate the approach and its resulting improvements in the quality and transparency of the BCA it was intended to inform.

Keywords

D61H1cost-benefit analysisCongressional hearingspolicy impacts
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 65 - 94
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Matthew D. and Posner, Eric A.. 2006. New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D.. 2015. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boardman, Anthony E., Greenberg, David H., Vining, Aidan R., and Weimer, David L.. 2011. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (Vol. 4). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Boardman, Anthony E., Greenberg, David H., Vining, Aidan R., and Weimer, David L.. 1997. “‘Plug-in’ Shadow Price Estimates for Policy Analysis.” The Annals of Regional Science, 31: 299–324.Google Scholar
Brännlund, Runar, Carlén, Ola, Lundgren, Tommy, and Marklund, Per-Olov. 2012. “The Costs and Benefits of Intensive Forest Management.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(4): 1–23.Google Scholar
Campbell, Harry F. and Brown, Richard P.C.. 2003. Benefit-Cost Analysis: Financial and Economic Appraisal Using Spreadsheets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, Thomas P.2006. Hearings in the House of Representatives: A Guide for Preparation and Procedure. Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Cellini, Stephanie Riegg and Kee, James Edwin. 2010. “Chapter 21: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation: 493–530. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Danguy, Jérôme and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno. 2011. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(2): 1–43.Google Scholar
Duffield, John, Neher, Chris, and Patterson, David. 2016. Colorado River Total Value Study. Final Report, Prepared for the National Parks Service.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Rob and Kragt, Marit E.. 2012. “Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(2): 1–29.Google Scholar
Hearings. The Policy Agendas Project at the University of Texas at Austin, 2017. www.comparativeagendas.net. Accessed September 26, 2017.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Carlson, Deven, Gupta, Kuhika, Jones, Benjamin, Ripberger, Joseph, Wehde, Wesley, and Berrens, Robert. 2016. Estimating Non-Use Values for Alternative Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam: An Inclusive Value Approach. Prepared for Department of Energy.Google Scholar
Jones, Benjamin A., Berrens, Robert P., Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Silva, Carol L., Carlson, Deven E., Ripberger, Joseph T., Gupta, Kuhika, and Carlson, Nina. 2016. “Valuation in the Anthropocene: Exploring options for alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam.” Water Resources and Economics, 14: 13–30.Google Scholar
Jones, Benjamin A., Berrens, Robert P., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Silva, Carol, Ripberger, Joe, Carlson, Deven, Gupta, Kuhika, and Wehde, Wesley. 2018. “In search of an inclusive approach: Measuring non-market values for the effects of complex dam, hydroelectric and river system operations.” Energy Economics, 69: 225–236.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Layard, Richard and Glaister, Stephen. 1994. Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Joshua Y. 2018. “Getting the message across: evaluating think tank influence in Congress.” Public Choice, 175(3–4): 347–366.Google Scholar
Liang, Xiao and van Dijk, Meine Pieter. 2012. “Cost Benefit Analysis of Centralized Wastewater Reuse Systems.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(3): 1–30.Google Scholar
Lewallen, J., Theriault, S. M., and Jones, B. D.. 2016. “Congressional dysfunction: An information processing perspective.” Regulation and Governance, 10: 179–190.Google Scholar
Lowry, Thomas S., Chermak, Janie, Brookshire, David S., Shaneyfelt, Calvin R., and Kobos, Peter H.. 2016. Measuring Non-Market Values for Hydropower Production and Water Storage on the Colorado River: A White Paper Investigation. Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
Palmer, Elizabeth A.2009. Senate Committee Hearings: Arranging Witnesses. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Sachs, Richard C.2004. Hearings in the House of Representatives: A Guide for Preparation and Procedure. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1971. “Designing Organizations for an Information-rich World.” In Greenberger, M. (Ed.), Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest: 37–72. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Trumbull, W. N. 1990. “Who has standing in cost-benefit analysis?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2): 201–218.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Impact Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2017 from the World Wide Web: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/OMB%20Circular%20No.%20A-4.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1992. Circular A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Retrieved February 9, 2017 from the World Wide Web: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/OMB%20Circular%20A-94.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2016. Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Retrieved February 9, 2017 from the World Wide Web: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/draft_2016_cost_benefit_report_12_14_2016_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Welsh, Michael P., Bishop, Richard C., Phillips, Marcia L., and Baumgartner, Robert M.. 1995. “Glen Canyon Dam.” In Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona—Non-use Value Study Final Report. Madison, WI: Bailly Consulting, Inc.Google Scholar
Whittington, Dale and MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1986. “The Issue of Standing in Cost-benefit Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4): 665–682.Google Scholar
Workman, Samuel. 2015. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy in the US Government: How Congress and Federal Agencies Process Information and Solve Problems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O. 1991. “Comment: Does Benefit Cost Analysis Stand Alone? Rights and Standing.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1): 96–105.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O. 2004. “Should moral sentiments be incorporated into benefit-cost analysis? An example of long-term discounting.” Policy Sciences, 37(3–4): 305–318.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O., Davis, Tyler Blake, Garland, Nancy, and Scott, Tyler. 2010. Toward principles and standards in the use of benefit-cost analysis. Benefit-Cost Analysis Center, University of Washington.Google Scholar