Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen, Mary F. Evans, M. Fowlie, A. Levinson, K. Palmer
{"title":"协同效益和监管影响分析:来自联邦空气质量法规的理论和证据","authors":"Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen, Mary F. Evans, M. Fowlie, A. Levinson, K. Palmer","doi":"10.1086/711308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997–2019, we show that (1) cobenefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of cobenefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) cobenefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in nearly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: cobenefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of cobenefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.","PeriodicalId":87249,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cobenefits and Regulatory Impact Analysis: Theory and Evidence from Federal Air Quality Regulations\",\"authors\":\"Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen, Mary F. Evans, M. Fowlie, A. Levinson, K. Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/711308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997–2019, we show that (1) cobenefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of cobenefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) cobenefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in nearly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: cobenefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of cobenefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental and energy policy and the economy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental and energy policy and the economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/711308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/711308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cobenefits and Regulatory Impact Analysis: Theory and Evidence from Federal Air Quality Regulations
This article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997–2019, we show that (1) cobenefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of cobenefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) cobenefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in nearly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: cobenefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of cobenefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.