Transparency in Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis

C. Cecot, R. Hahn
{"title":"Transparency in Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis","authors":"C. Cecot, R. Hahn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3531224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cost-benefit analysis (“CBA”) is widely used in agency decisionmaking, summarizing the impacts of an agency’s chosen policy. As agency rulemakings have increased in quantity and importance, there has been renewed interest in improving transparency in decisionmaking, especially with respect to the models and data that underlie CBA. Recent proposals have been highly controversial. At least some of the controversy can be attributed to limited information about the usefulness of this type of transparency. \n \nThis Article contributes to this debate by evaluating the current level of transparency in CBA and proposing incremental improvements. First, it suggests a new framework for thinking about transparency in CBA that includes two key dimensions: process transparency and policy transparency. A CBA that scores well on these two dimensions would allow interested parties to scrutinize agency action and hold decisionmakers more accountable. Second, it objectively evaluates the process transparency and policy transparency of a comprehensive set of CBAs for significant rules issued between October 2015 and September 2018. It uses a scorecard methodology, which scores whether a particular CBA met a number of different criteria related to transparency. \n \nThe Article finds that many agency CBAs lack basic process transparency, meaning that their creation and role in the decisionmaking process is not clear. In addition, most CBAs continue to lack transparency about policy impacts, often failing to quantify and monetize costs and benefits. Among CBAs that do monetize at least some costs and benefits, most do not make their data, models, and underlying sources readily available online. In light of the results, the Article provides low-cost recommendations for improving transparency in CBA that could do more good than harm. In particular, while models used in the CBA and their inputs should be adequately described and made publicly available, it is premature to require that all underlying data from studies used in the CBA be made available. In line with this incremental approach to improving CBA transparency, we argue that the move toward adopting an “open policy framework” in government policy analysis should consider both the costs and the benefits carefully.","PeriodicalId":152994,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Environmental Law (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Environmental Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3531224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Cost-benefit analysis (“CBA”) is widely used in agency decisionmaking, summarizing the impacts of an agency’s chosen policy. As agency rulemakings have increased in quantity and importance, there has been renewed interest in improving transparency in decisionmaking, especially with respect to the models and data that underlie CBA. Recent proposals have been highly controversial. At least some of the controversy can be attributed to limited information about the usefulness of this type of transparency. This Article contributes to this debate by evaluating the current level of transparency in CBA and proposing incremental improvements. First, it suggests a new framework for thinking about transparency in CBA that includes two key dimensions: process transparency and policy transparency. A CBA that scores well on these two dimensions would allow interested parties to scrutinize agency action and hold decisionmakers more accountable. Second, it objectively evaluates the process transparency and policy transparency of a comprehensive set of CBAs for significant rules issued between October 2015 and September 2018. It uses a scorecard methodology, which scores whether a particular CBA met a number of different criteria related to transparency. The Article finds that many agency CBAs lack basic process transparency, meaning that their creation and role in the decisionmaking process is not clear. In addition, most CBAs continue to lack transparency about policy impacts, often failing to quantify and monetize costs and benefits. Among CBAs that do monetize at least some costs and benefits, most do not make their data, models, and underlying sources readily available online. In light of the results, the Article provides low-cost recommendations for improving transparency in CBA that could do more good than harm. In particular, while models used in the CBA and their inputs should be adequately described and made publicly available, it is premature to require that all underlying data from studies used in the CBA be made available. In line with this incremental approach to improving CBA transparency, we argue that the move toward adopting an “open policy framework” in government policy analysis should consider both the costs and the benefits carefully.
机构成本效益分析的透明度
成本效益分析(Cost-benefit analysis,简称“CBA”)被广泛应用于机构决策中,它总结了机构所选择的政策的影响。随着机构规则制定在数量和重要性上的增加,人们对提高决策透明度的兴趣重新燃起,尤其是在CBA基础上的模型和数据方面。最近的提议备受争议。至少有部分争议可以归因于关于这种透明度有用性的信息有限。本文通过评估CBA目前的透明度水平,并提出逐步改进的建议,为这场辩论做出贡献。首先,它提出了一个新的框架来思考CBA的透明度,包括两个关键维度:流程透明度和政策透明度。在这两个方面得分较高的CBA将允许利益相关方审查机构行为,并使决策者更负责任。其次,它客观地评估了2015年10月至2018年9月期间发布的一系列重要规则的全面cba的流程透明度和政策透明度。它使用记分卡方法,对特定的CBA是否符合与透明度相关的许多不同标准进行评分。本文发现,许多机构cba缺乏基本的过程透明度,这意味着它们的创建和在决策过程中的作用不明确。此外,大多数cba仍然缺乏政策影响的透明度,往往无法量化成本和收益并将其货币化。在那些至少将一些成本和收益货币化的cba中,大多数cba没有将他们的数据、模型和潜在资源随时放在网上。鉴于这些结果,本文为提高CBA的透明度提供了一些低成本的建议,这些建议可能利大于弊。特别是,虽然CBA中使用的模型及其输入应得到充分描述并公开提供,但要求提供CBA中使用的所有基础数据还为时过早。与这种提高CBA透明度的增量方法一致,我们认为在政府政策分析中采用“开放政策框架”的举动应该仔细考虑成本和收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信