Federal regulatory policy and the evaluation of regulations using benefit-cost analysis continue to be quite contentious. Advocates for more regulation claim that benefit-cost analysis loses information and impedes our understanding of the real beneficial consequences of regulatory action. Against this backdrop, economists and advocates of economic analysis have sought to improve the quality and technical content of benefit-cost analysis. This article examines key changes made by the 2003 guidelines in Circular A-4 for regulatory analysis issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in an effort to strengthen such analysis. We discuss the motivation and basis for these changes—the treatment of discount rates and uncertainty and the cost-effectiveness analysis for rules affecting health and safety—and evaluate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's response to the A-4 changes in its analysis of environmental rules.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error