Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Policy

464 Pages·2009·6.63 MB·English

COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS AND
PUBLIC POLICY
Davidl..Weimer,Editor
V Preface
V Introduction
DavidLWeimar,Cost-BenefitAnalysisandPublicPolicy
TheIssueofStanding
Whittington,D.,&MacRae,D.,Jr.(1986).TheM olstandingin(mt-benefitanalysis.
PAM.5(4).665-82.
MacRae.D.,Jr,&Whittington,D.(1983)Assesingpreferencelncost-benefitanalysis:Reflectionson
nrralwatersupplyevaluationinHaiti.JPAM,7(2),246—63. 21
'll'umbull,W.N.(l990).Whohasstandingincost-benefitanalysis?jPAM.9(2),20l—18. 37
Whittington.D.,&MacRae,D.,jr.0990).CommentJudgmentsaboutwhohasstandingincost-benefit
analysis.JPAM.9(4).536—47.
'l‘l'umbull,W.N.(l990).RqalytoWhittingtonandMacRæ.]PAM.9(4).543—50. 63
Yerba.R.O.,]r.(l991).'(‘.ommenl:Doesbenefit-costanalys'sstandalone?Rightsandstanding,
]PAM,10(l),96—105. 65
Discountingforfinie
Brown,P.G.(1988).Policyanalysis,welfareeconomic.andthegreenhouseeffect.JPAM,7(3).471—75.
Kcle. A,&Scheraga.].D.(1990).Discountingthebenefitsandcostsofenvironmentalregulations
.JPAM.9(3).381—90­
Metcalf,G.E..&Rœenlhal,D.(1995).The“'new‘Viewofinvstmentdecisionsandpublicpolicy
analysis:Anapplicationtogreenlightsandcoldrefrigerators.JPAM,14(4),Sl7—31.
Moore.M.A,Boardman,AE..Vrning,AR.,Weimer.D.L,&Greenberg,D.H.(2004).“Justgiveme .
anumber!"Practicalvaluesforthesocialdiscountrate.JPAM,23(4).789—812.
Cart-BarefirAnalysisandPublicPolicy EditedbyDavidLWeimer
o2008theAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysismdManagement.ISBN:978-1-405-l90l6—9
Riskandthe“ValueofLife”
Moore,M.]…&Vrscusi,W.K.(1988).Doublingtheestimatedvalueoflife:Raultsfromnew
occupationalfatalitydata.jPAM.7(3).476-90. 125
Fisher.A,Chtstnut.LG.,&Violette,D.M.(1989).Thevalueofreducingrisksofdeath:
Anoteonnewevidence.]PAM,8(1),88—100. 139
Knetsch,_|.L(1995).Assumptions,behavioralfinding,andpolicyanalysis.JPAM,l4(l),68-78. 151
Mrozek,J.R.,&Taylor,L0.(2002).Whatdeterminesthevalueoflife.Ameta-analysis.
JPAM.21(2).253—70. I61
HammilLJ.K(2002).Understandingdifl‘erencsinestimatesofthevalueofmortalityrisk.
JPAM,2l(2).271—73. 179
Krupnick.A(2002).Thevalueolreducingriskofdeath:Apolicyperspective.
jPAM,21(2).275—82.
Non-UseValueasaBenefitCategory
Rosenthal.D.H.,&Nelson,R.H.(1992).Whyexistencevalueshouldno!beusedincost-benefit
analysis.jPAM,11(1),116—22.
Kopp,R.].(1992).Whyexistencevalueshouldbeusedincost-benefitanalysis.
JPAM,11(1),123—30.
Quiggin,j.(1993).Existencevalueandbenefit-costanalysis:Athirdview.JPAM,12(l),195—99.
Smith,V.K.(1993).Rethinkingtherithmeticofdamage…!.)PAM, 12(3).589-95.
CDAinAdministrativeandLegalContext
Boardman,A,Vining.A,&Waters.W.G.,II(1993).Costsandbenefitsthroughbureaucraticlenses:
ExampleofahighwayproieuJPAM.12(3).532—55. 214
Krutilla,K.(2005).UsingtheKaldor-Hicltstableauformalforcost-benefitanalysisandpolicy
evaluationJPAM.24(4).864—75. 235
Kopp,R.j.,&Smith,V.K.(1989).BenthstimaliongoestocourtThecaseofnaturalresource
damageasessment.jPAM,8(4).593—612.
hrbe.R.0.,Jr.(1998).lscast-benditanalysislegal?Threemlts.jPAM,17(3).419—56. 275
"311111810“W...Morgenstem,R.D.,&Nelson,P.(21-1).Ontheaccuracyofregulatorycogestimates.
JPN“.19(2).297-322.
CDAApplications
bong,D.A,Mallar,C.D.,&'l‘homlon,C.V.D.(1981).EvaluatingthebenefitsandcostsoftheJobCorps
JPItM,1(1).55—76. 333
Goma-ibanez,J.A.icone,R.A.&O‘Connell,S.A(1983).Restrainingautoimpons:Dots
anyonewin?]PAM,2(2),l96—219.
Kamerud,D.B.(1988).Benefitsandcostsofthe55MPHspeedlimit:NewStimals andtheir
implimtionsJPAM,7(2),341—52. 370
Vitaliano,D.F.(1992).Aneconomicmme… ofthesocialantsofhighwaysaltingandthe
efficiencyofsubstitutinganewdeicingmaterial.JPAM.11(3).397—418.
Devaney,B.,Bilheimer.L.&Schore,].(1992).Medicaidoœtsandbirthoutcome:Theeffectsof
prenatalW1Cparticipationandtheuseofprenatalmm.]PAM,ll(4),573—92.
Schwindt,R.,Vining.A.&Globennan,S.(21—l).Netlos:Acost-benefitanalysisofthe
CanadianPacificsalmonfishery.IPAM.19(1).23—45. M9
Chen,6..&Warburton,R.N.(2006).Dospeedœmemsproducenetbenefits?Evidencefrom
BritishColumbia,Canada.jPAM,25(3).661—78.
Index 457
Prefoce
Cost-benefitanalysis(CBA)holdsaprominent, butcontroversial,placeamongthe
techniquesofpublicpolicyanalysis.Atoneextreme,someeconomistsviewCBAas
synonymouswithgoodpolicyanalysis.Attheotherextreme,adiversegroupof
politicalphilosophersattackitasatechnocraticundercuttingofdemocraticvalues,
autilitarianthreattoindividualrights,oracrassdebasingofpublicdiscourse.Yet,
CBAisneitherpanaceanorfatalpoison.Thoughoftenimpracticaltoimplement
andrarelyfullyappropriate asaformaldecisionrule,itprovidespolicyanalysts
withinsightsfororganizingtheirthinkingaboutthegoalofefficiencyandspecific
techniquestohelpguidethemeasurementandvaluationoftheimpactsofpolicies
intermsoftheresourcestheyrequireandtheeffectstheyproduce.Exposuretothe
fundamentalissuessurroundingtheuseofCBAandexamplesofitspracticalappli­
cationhavevaluetocurrentandfuturepractitionersofpolicyanalysisaswellasto
researchersinthepolicysciences.Thisvolumeseekstofacilitatesuchexposureby
drawingtogetherintoaconvenientcollectionthefinearticlesonCBAanditsappli­
cationthathaveappearedintheJournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement(JPAM).
AsateacherandsometimesproduceroruserofCBA,aswellasaparticipant in
someofthedebatesoveritsappropriate roleinpolicyanalysis,Iamhonoredto
havetheopportunitytoassembleandtointroducethisvolume.Asamemberofthe
AssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement,Iamverypleasedthatour
journalhasproducedaninteresting,balanced,andpracticallyorientedsetofarti­
clesfromwhichtochoose.Iespeciallyenjoyedreturningtosomeofthearticlesthat
appearedduringmyeditorshipofJPAM—abitlikebecomingreacquaintedwithold
friends.Itismyhopethatpractitioners, teachers,andstudentswillsharemyview
thatthereismuchinthesearticlestohelpusmakebetteruseofCBAasaresource
forgoodpolicyanalysis.
DavidL.Weimer
UniversityofWisconsin—Madison
JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,
©2008bytheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement
PublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.PublishedonlineinWileylnlerScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI:lO.l002/pam.
Introduction: DavidL.Weimer
Cost-BenefitAnalysisand
Public Policy
Theeconomicapproachtopolicyanalysisgivesacentralroletoefficiency.Thecon­
ceptualstartingpointisParetoefficiency.Anallocationofresourcestoproduction
andgoodstoconsumptionisParetoefficientifitisimpossibletofindanalternative
allocationthatmakesatleastonepersonbetteroffwithoutmakinganyoneelse
worseoff.Reallocations are Pareto improvingiftheymakesomeone better off
withoutmakinganyoneelseworseoff.SeekingParetoimprovementshasobvious
appeal;inspecificcircumstances,onewouldhavetobemalevolenttoopposegains
tosomethatrequirenootherstobearlosses.Outofpracticalnecessity,however,
economic analysisgenerallymeasures gains inefficiencyinterms ofpotential,
rather than actual, Pareto improvements. Areallocation is potentially Pareto
improvingifitgeneratesanexcessofgainsoverlossessothatitwouldbepossible,
throughcostlesstransfers,tomakethereallocationParetoimproving.Cost-benefit
analysis(CBA)comprisestheconceptsandmethods formeasuring benefitsand
costsinamoneymetrictodetermineifproposedpolicyalternativesarepotentially
Paretoimproving.
TheCBAdecision rule,adopt thecombination ofpoliciesthat maximizesthe
excessofbenefitsovercosts,suffersfromatleasttwolimitationsasaguideforpub­
licpolicy.First,efficiencyisrarelytheonlyrelevantvalueinchoosingamongpolicy
alternatives. Distributional concerns, individual freedom,and national security,
amongothervalues,oftenhavewidelyrecognizedsubstantiverelevancetopruden­
tialchoiceinvariouspolicyareas,andpoliticalfeasibilityoftenhasinstrumental
importanceinactualarenasofchoice.Conflictsbetweendistributionalvaluesand
theCBAdecisionruleareparticularlyfundamentalinthatParetoefficiencytakesthe
existingdistributionofwealthasgivenandpotentialParetoimprovementsdonot
requirethateveryoneactuallygetatleasttheirinitialshares.Second,evenwhen
efficiencyistheonlyrelevantvalue,itmaynotbepracticallypossibletomeasureit
intermsofthemoneymetric.Oftenonlysomepolicyeffectscanbemonetized.The
reliabilityoftheCBAdecisionruledependsonthecomprehensivenessofthemon­
etization.Eitherexcludingimportant effectsormonetizingthemincorrectlycan
leadtothechoiceofpoliciesthatdonotpromoteefficiency.
MuchcriticismofCBAasadecisionruleinvolvestheselimitations.Nevertheless,
situationsdoarise,mostofteninthecontextofinfrastructure investmentssuch
asbridges,dams,andhighways,inwhichefficiencycanbereasonablytakenasthe
relevantvalueandallmajorimpactscanbeconfidentlymonetized.CBAhasmuch
broader application, however,asaprotocol foridentifyingand monetizing the
efficiencyeffectsofpolicies.
Efficiencyisalmostalwaysoneoftherelevantgoalsinpolicyanalysis.CBAcon­
ceptsandmethodsenableanalyststorankalternativesintermsoftheirefficiency.
Whentherankingisintermsofthemoneymetric,notonlyisthecomparison of
Cosl-BenefilAnalyst}andPublicPolicy EditedbyDavidL.Weimet
O2008theAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement.ISBN:97B-l-405-l90l6—9
Introduction: Cost-BenefitAnalysisandPublicPolicy/3
alternativesintermsofefficiencyfacilitated,buttradeoffsbetweenefficiencyand
othergoalscanbemademoreeasily.Thus,evenanalystsworkinginpolicyareasin
whichCBAisinappropriate asadecisionrulearelikelytofinditusefulasaproto­
colformeasuringefficiency.
Thearticlescollectedinthisvolumeexploremanyoftheimportant issuesthat
ariseintheapplication ofCBA.Theyassumesomefamiliaritywiththebasicsof
CBA,whichcanbefoundinanumberoftexts:Harberger (1972),Mishan(1976),
SugdenandWilliams(1978),Gramlich(1990),ZerbeandDively(1994),Dinwiddy
andTeal(1996),andBoardman andcolleagues(2006).AstheJPAMarticleswere
writtenoriginallyforaninterdisciplinaryaudienceofscholarsandpractitioners
interestedinpolicyanalysis,theynicelybridgethegapbetweenconceptualissues
andpracticalapplication.Theyofferpolicyanalystsadeeperunderstanding of
CBAandthewaythat itcanhelpthem improvetheircraft.Thoughgenerated
through thedecentralized processofjournal submission, theyaresurprisingly
comprehensiveintermsofcoveringthebigissuesthatariseintheapplicationof
CBA.Thefollowingsectionsprovideabriefoverviewofthetopicscoveredinthis
volume.
THEISSUEOFSTANDING
TheguidingprincipleinCBAformonetizingpolicyeffectsiswillingness-to-pay.The
socialbenefitofapolicyeffectisthesumofthemaximumamounts thatpeople
wouldbewillingtopaytoobtainit;thesocialcostofapolicyeffectisthesumof
themaximum amounts peoplewouldbewillingtopaytoavoidit.Butwhose
willingness-to-payshouldcount?Shouldwillingness-to-payforthingsthatwould
generallybeviewedasabhorrentcount?
DaleWhittingtonandDuncanMacRae,Jr.(1986)addressthesequestionsintheir
seminalarticleintroducingtherubricofstanding.Atoneextreme,standingdealswith
therelativelystraightforwardissueoftheappropriatejurisdictionalextentofsociety
(world,country,orsubnationalunit).Morecomplicatedissuesofstandinginvolvethe
compositionofsocietywithinthejurisdiction(citizens,legalresidents,visitors,orille­
galaliens) and the treatment of suspect preferences (criminal, ungenerous, or
immoralbehavior).Forexample,MacRaeandWhittington(1988)raisethequestion
ofhowtotakeaccountoftheapparentdisutilitysufferedbyruralHaitianmenasa
resultofwatersupplyimprovementsthatmakethelivesoftheirwiveseasier.
In a spirited and thoughtful exchange, William Trumbull (1990a, 1990b),
Whittington and MacRae(1990),and Richard Zerbe(1991)debate someofthe
moredifficultcasesofstandinginvolvingcriminalgains,futuregenerations,and
cross-bordereffects.Trumbull(1990)attempts toresolvethesecasesbyasserting
that,just asanalysts must consider physicalconstraints invaluingalternative
projects,theyshouldalsotakeintoaccountsocialconstraints. Zerbe(1991)seeks
resolutionbyarguingthatissuesofstandingshouldbeviewedasproblemsinthe
assignmentofrights,anargument thathedevelopsmorefullyinhis1998article
included inthesection ontheuseofCBAinadministrative and legalsettings.
Althoughneitheroftheseapproachesprovidesafullysatisfactoryresolution,each
offersinsightsthatarelikelytobehelpfultoanalystsindealingwiththeissuesof
standingthattheyconfront.
DISCOUNTINGFORTIME
Commonsenseandsimplecapitaltheorytellusthatadollarofbenefitreceived
todayisworthmorethanadollarreceivedayearfromnow.Thispreferencefor
earlierratherthanlaterpaymentsholdsevenifweassumethatthepaymentsare
JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement DOI:10.1002/pam
PublishedonbehalfoftheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement
4/Introduction:Cost-BenefitAnalysisandPublicPolicy
certainandthattheyaremadeindollarswiththesamepurchasing power.CBA
takesaccountofthisbyexpressingcostsandbenefitsthataccrueovertimeinterms
oftheirpresentvalues.Initssimplestform,thepresentvalueofadollarofcostor
benefit1yearsinthefutureis1/(1+d)t,wheredistheannualsocialdiscountrate.
Astheimplementation ofprojects typicallyinvolvestheaccrual ofcostsbefore
therealizationofbenefits,themagnitudesandevensometimesthesignsofthe
presentvaluesofnetbenefitsareoftensensitivetotheassumedvalueofthesocial
discountrate.
Althougheconomistsgenerallyacceptthenotionthatfuturecostsandbenefits
shouldbediscountedtotheirpresentvaluesinCBA,somecriticsobjecttoitsimpli­
cationsforvaluingeffectsthatoccurfarinthefuture.PeterBrown(1988)reminds
us,forexample,thattheuseofanypositivesocialdiscountrateputsvanishingly
smallweightoneffectsthatoccurinthefarfuture.
Amongeconomists,therecontinuestobedebateovertheconceptuallycorrect
socialdiscountrateandhowitshouldbeappliedinpractice.Inarealeconomy,
consumerstradecurrentandfutureconsumptionatadifferentratethanproducers
cantradecurrentconsumptionforfutureproductionthroughinvestment—thefor­
mer,themarginalrateofpuretimepreference,isgenerallylargerthanthelatter,
themarginalrateofreturnonprivateinvestment.JeffreyKolbandJoelScheraga
(1990)summarize the shadow-price-of-capital approach todiscounting, which
involvesconvertingchangesininvestmenttoequivalentchangesinconsumption
anddiscountingusingthemarginalrateofpuretimepreference.
Developmentsininvestmenttheorysuggestthatfactorssuchasirreversibilityand
uncertaintyinreturnsbringintoquestionthestandard privateinvestmentrules
basedonpresentvaluecalculations.GilbertMetcalfandDonaldRosenthal(1995)
discusstheimplicationsofthesedevelopmentsininvestmenttheoryfortheevalu­
ationofgovernmentprogramsintendedtoencourageprivateinvestments.Their
discussionsuggestsyetanotherlevelofcomplicationthatshouldbeconsideredin
thedebateoverappropriate discountinginCBA.
MarkMooreandcolleagues(2004)provideareviewofthevariousissuesand
approachestodiscounting.Inadditiontotheshadowpriceofcapitalapproach,they
considertheoptimalgrowthratemethodandtheuseoftime-decliningdiscount
ratesforintergenerational projects.Seekingtoprovideguidanceforpractitioners,
theyproviderecommendations forthenumericalvaluesofthesocialdiscountrate
tobeusedforprojectswithbothcurrentandintergenerationaltimehorizons.
RISKANDTHE“VALUEOFLIFE"
Manypublicpolicies,suchashighwayimprovements,vaccinationprograms,and
purefoodregulations,canchangethemortalityrisksthatpeopleface.CBArequires
thatsuchchangesinriskbemonetizedaspeople'sexantewillingness-to-payfor
them.Inpractice,however,analystsarerarelyinapositiontoelicittheseamounts
directly.Instead,theytypicallypredictthenumberoflivessavedandthenapplya
shadowpriceforastatisticallife,a"valueoflife,"estimatedfromobservationofthe
tradeoffspeoplemakebetweenmortalityrisksandothergoodsinvariousmarkets.
MichaelMooreandW.KipViscusi(1988)demonstrate thisapproach byrelating
occupationalmortalityriskstowagepremiums,thatis,howmuchadditionalcom­
pensationmustbepaidtoworkerssothattheywillacceptriskierjobs.AnnFisher,
LauraineChestnut,andDanielViolette(1989)reviewvalue-of-lifeestimatesbasedon
suchlabormarkettradeoffs,aswellasstudiesofconsumerdecisionsinvolvingpur­
chasesofsafetydevicesandsurveysthatdirectlyaskconsumersabouttheirwillingness
topayforriskreductions.Thesestudies reportarangeofestimatesfrom$1.6million
to$8.5million(1986dollars)forthevalueofastatisticallife.Theyarguethatthe
JoumalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement DOI:lO.l002/pam
PublishedonbehalfoftheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement
Introduction: Cost-BenefitAnalysisandPublicPolicy/5
appropriateshadowpriceforlivessavedisatthelowerendofthisrange.Inamore
recentreviewofvalue-of-Iifeestimates,JanuszMrozekandLauraTaylor(2002)con­
ductameta-analysisofavailablestudies toargueforavalueofstatistical lifeof
between $1.5million and $2.5million (1998dollars). In thesame issue,James
Hammitt(2002)andAlanKrupnick(2002)offerusefulcommentsonthemeta-analysis.
Agrowingbodyofempiricalresearchonthebehaviorofpeopleincircumstances
involvingriskhasraisedsomedoubtsaboutwhether the“valueoflife”inferred
fromobservedbehaviorcanbereasonablyinterpreted aswillingnesstopayfor
reductionsinmortalityrisks.Drawingonagrowingbodyofbehavioralresearch,
JackKnetsch(1995)considerstheimplicationsofthefindingthatpeopleseemto
valuelossesmuchmorehighlythangainsofthesamemagnitudeforthetreatment
ofriskinpolicyanalysismoregenerally.
NON-USEVALUEASABENEFITCATEGORY
Withdevelopmentofnewmeasurementtechniquesandbroadersubstantiveappli­
cation,therangeofpolicyeffectsvaluedinCBAhasexpanded.Itisnowcommonto
distinguishbetweenuseandnon-usevalues.Useincludeschangesinconsumption
ofpureprivategoodssuchaswater,electricity,anddaycare,thathavetraditionally
comprised thebenefit categories usedinCBA.Overtime,theusecategoryhas
expanded to include goods, such as visits to wilderness areas, that may be
nonrivalrous inconsumption andeventolocalpublicgoods,suchasairquality,
thataffectpropertyvalues.Inallthesecases,theconsumptionofthegoodleavesa
"behavioraltrace"thatcanbeobservedasthebasisforinferenceaboutitsvalueto
thosewhoconsumeit.
Theprimarycomponentofnon-usevalueisapurepublicgoodcalledexistence
value.Itrecognizesthatpeoplemightbewillingtopayforsuchthingsasthepreser­
vationofawildernessareaeveniftheyexpectnevertovisititthemselves.Inother
words,theyplaceavalueonitsmereexistence.Thedevelopmentofcontingent
valuesurveymethods,whichattempt toelicitpeople'swillingness-to-paythrough
directquestions,hasledtotheinclusionofexistencevalueasabenefitinagrow­
ingnumber ofCBAsdealing with environmental issues—fora comprehensive
review,seeBatemanandWillis(1999).DonaldRosenthalandRobertNelson(1992),
RaymondKopp(1993),JohnQuiggin(1993),andV.KenySmith(1993)debatethe
appropriateness ofincludingexistencevalueinCBA.
CBAINADMINISTRATIVEANDLEGALCONTEXT
TheuseofCBAasaninputtoadministrativeandlegalprocessescreatesincentives
foritsdistortion.AnthonyBoardman,AidanVining,andW.G.WatersII(1993)illus­
tratewiththecaseofahighwayprojecthowbureaucrats tendtoadoptrolesas
guardians,spenders,oranalyststhatleadthemtoclassifycostsandbenefitsinvery
differentways.KerryKrutilla(2005)illustrateshowdistributional implicationsof
alternativepoliciescanbepresentedwithintheCBAframeworkusingwhathecalls
“Kaldor—Hickstableaus." Winston Harrington and colleagues (2000) review the
recordofcostestimationbyfederalregulatoryagencies,reportingthatpredictions
ofthetotalcostofregulationsgenerallyoverestimatecosts,whilethepredictionsof
unitcoststendtobemoreaccurate. RaymondKoppandV.Ken'ySmith (1989)
considerthesourcesofdifferencebetweenestimatesofenvironmentaldamageby
plaintiffsanddefendantsincourtcasesundertheComprehensiveEnvironmental
Response,Compensation,andLiabilityAct.Ontheonehand,controversyoverthe
measurement ofcostsandbenefitsmaydishearten CBAadvocates;ontheother
hand,itshouldalsocheerthemasanindicationthatCBAhaspracticalsignificance!
JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement DOI:10.1002/pam
PublishedonbehalfoftheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement
o/Introduction: Cost-BenefitAnalysisandPublicPolicy
RichardZerbe(1998)adoptsabroadperspectiveonthemeasurementofbenefits
andturnstothelawtoresolveissuesofstanding.Hearguesthatdoingsoremoves
manyofthenormativeobjectionsraisedagainstCBA,includingthosebasedon
distributional issues.Further,hesuggeststhatCBAmayevenplayaroleinidenti­
fyingwaysthatlawitselfmaybecomemoreefficient.
CBAAPPLICATIONS
Observingefforts toapply CBAhelps conveyitspromise and limitations. The
articlesthatconcludethisvolumedemonstrate theapplicationofCBAinavariety
ofsubstantive policyareas:socialwelfare(Long,Mallar,&Thorton, 1981;Devaney,
Bilheimer,&Schore, 1992);trade(Gomez-Ibanez, Leone,&O'Connell,1983);envi­
ronment (Vitaliano,1992;Schwindt etal.,2000);andhighwaysafety(Kamerud,
1988;Chen&Warburton, 2006).
REFERENCES
Bateman,l.J.,&Willis,K.G.(1999).Valuingenvironmental preferences.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Boardman, A.,Greenberg, D.,Vining,A.,&Weimer.D.(2006).Cost-benefitanalysis:Con­
ceptsandpractice(3rdedition).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Gramlich,E.M.(1990).Aguidetobenefit-costanalysis.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Dinwiddy,C.,&Teal,F.(1996).Principlesofcost-benefitanalysisfordevelopingcountries.
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Harberger,A.C.(1972).Projectevaluation.Chicago,IL:Markham.
Mishan,E.J.(1976).Cost-benefitanalysis.NewYork,NY:Praeger.
Sugden,R.,&Williams,A.H.(1978).Principlesofpracticalcost-benefitanalysis.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Zerbe,R.O.,&Dively,D.(1994).Benefit—CostAnalysisinTheoryandPractice. NewYork:
HarperCollinsCollegePublishers.
JoumalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement DOI:10.1002/pam
PublishedonbehalfoftheAssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagement