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.
Regulatory capture, neither inevitable nor a death trap for agencies, must be reduced to advance public policy goals.
RegBlog’s fifth anniversary prompts illuminating debate about the best path for future regulators.
A 2009 court decision could spur more cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory process.
Combining better analysis with more meaningful participation will improve policy decisions.
CPSC considers costs of regulating corded window coverings, benefits to child safety.
At oral arguments, Justices question whether EPA considered costs of regulation at the right time.