Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-rmx46 Total loading time: 0.287 Render date: 2022-07-07T13:56:33.331Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Benefit-Cost Analysis in the States: Status, Impact, and Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2015

Darcy White
Affiliation:
The Pew Charitable Trusts, DC 20004, USA
Gary VanLandingham*
Affiliation:
The Pew Charitable Trusts, DC 20004, USA, e-mail: gvanlandingham@pewtrusts.org

Abstract

Although there is growing interest in applying benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to public policy questions, limited information is available on states’ use of this methodology. The nationwide assessment presented here begins to fill that void and finds that states and the District of Columbia are increasingly conducting BCAs and using the results to inform their policy choices. The numbers of reports released by the states and statutory mandates to conduct these studies increased substantially between 2008 and 2011. An analysis of the studies released by states shows that most lack some recommended technical features of rigorous BCA, but the reports are having a reported impact on state policy and budget decisions. Like other forms of policy research, BCA faces challenges including resource and data limitations, timing problems, and gaining policymaker buy-in for the approach and findings.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkin, M. C. (2005). Utilization of Evaluation. In Mathison, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Evaluation (pp. 434436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Alkin, M. C., Daillak, R. & White, P. (1979). Using Evaluations: Does Evaluation Make a Difference? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (2003). Creating Compendia of “Best Practice”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 661665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. B. & Dunoff, J. L. (1996). Against Market Rationality: Moral Critiques of Economic Analysis in Legal Theory. Cardozo Law Review, 17, 431496.Google Scholar
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R. & Weimer, D. L. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis – Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bogenschneider, K. & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Evidence-Based Policymaking. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brent, R. J. (2006). Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis. (2nd ed.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google ScholarPubMed
Caplan, N. (1977). A Minimal Set of Condition Necessary for the Utilization of Social Science Knowledge in the Policy Formulation at the National Level. In Weiss, C. H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making (pp. 193197). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Carlsson, J., Eriksson-Baaz, M., Fallenius, A. M. & Lövgren, E. (1999). Are Evaluations Useful? Cases from Swedish Development Co-Operation. Sida Studies in Evaluation, 99(1).Google Scholar
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2011). National Health Expenditures 2011 Highlights.Google Scholar
Court, J. & Young, J. (2006). Bridging Research and Policy: Insights from 50 Case Studies. Evidence & Policy, 2(4), 439462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, J. B. & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current Empirical Research on Evaluation Utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56(3), 331364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, J. B. & Shulha, L. (2006). A Comparative Analysis of Evaluation Utilization and its Cognate Fields of Inquiry: Current Issues and Trends. In Shaw, I. F. & Green, J. C. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Evaluation: Policies, Programs and Practice (pp. 266291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.(2002). Rethinking Evaluation Use. Paper presented at the 2002 Australian Evaluation Society International Conference, Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar
Ergas, H. (2009). In Defence of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Australian National University, 3(1), 181193.Google Scholar
Executive Order No. 12866, (1993). 58 FR 51735.Google Scholar
Executive Order No. 12991, (1981). 46 FR 13193, 3 CFR.Google Scholar
Farrow, S. & Zerbe, R. (2013). Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Northampton, MA: Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Funds Information for States. FFIS Grants Database. www.ffis.org/database (accessed October 23, 2013).Google Scholar
Fuchs, E. P. & Anderson, J. E. (1987). The Institutionalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Public Productivity Review, 10(4), 2533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garri, I. (2010). Political-Short-Termism: A Possible Explanation. Public Choice, 45(1–2), 197211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. D. (2008). Saving Lives Through Administrative Law and Economics. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157(2), 101245.Google Scholar
Haggerty, T.(2013). NCSL Fiscal Brief: “Weakcovery”: State General Fund Revenues, Economic Downturns & Recoveries. National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. W. (1998a). Government Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Regulation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), 201210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, R. W.(1998b). State and Federal Regulatory Reform: A Comparative Analysis.AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. W. & Dudley, P. M. (2007). How Well Does the U.S. Government Do Benefit-Cost Analysis? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(2), 197211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, R. W. & Litan, R. E. (2004). Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the U.S. and Europe. Journal of International Economic Law, 8(2), 473508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, R. W. & Sunstein, C. R. (2002). A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 14891552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, R. W. & Tetlock, P. C. (2008). Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1), 6784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L. & Morgenstern, R. D.(Eds.) (2009). In Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: RFF Press.Google Scholar
Henry, G. T. (2000). Why Not Use? In Caracelli, V. & Preskill, H. (Eds.), The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use. New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 88, pp. 524). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Henry, G. T. & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation’s Influence on Attitudes and Actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 293314.Google Scholar
Herk, M.(2010). Increasing the impact of benefit-cost analysis on social policy: next steps forward. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.Google Scholar
Hird, J. A. (2005). Power, Knowledge, and Politics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Homan, A. C. (2014). Role of BCA in TIGER Grant Reviews: Common Errors and Influence on the Selection Process. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(1), 111136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homan, A. C., Adams, T. M. & Marach, A. J. (2014). A Statistical Analysis of the Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Awarding TIGER Grants. Public Works Management & Policy, 19(1), 3750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, E. T. Jr. & Hall, J. L. (2012). Evidence-Based Practice and the Use of Information in State Agency Decision Making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 245266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S. A., King, J. A., Lawrenz, F. & Volkov, B. (2009). Research on Evaluation Use, A Review of the Empirical Literature From 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, J. S. (2002). A Game Theoretic Analysis of Alternative Institutions for Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 13431428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkhart, K. (2000). Reconceptualizing Evaluation Use: An Integrated Theory of Influence. In Caracelli, V. & Preskill, H. (Eds.), The Expanding Scope of Evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 88, pp. 524). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kothari, A., MacLean, L. & Edwards, N. (2009). Increasing Capacity for Knowledge Translation: Understanding How Some Researchers Engage Policy-Makers. Evidence and Policy, 5(1), 3351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Aos, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Miller, M. & Anderson, L. (2012). Return on Investment: Evidence-based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes, April 2012 (Document No. 12-04-1201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Leviton, L. C. & Hughes, E. F. X. (1981). Research on the Utilization of Evaluations: A Review and Synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5(4), 525548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
Mark, M. M. & Henry, G. T. (2004). The Mechanisms and Outcomes of Evaluation Influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 3557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, M. (2000). How Much Does Evaluation Matter? Some Examples of Utilization of the Evaluation of the World Bank’s Anti-Corruption Activities. Evaluation, 6(1), 2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masur, J. S. & Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate Regulation and the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis. California Law Review, 99, 15571601.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G. & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and political Control. Virginia Law Review, 75(2), 431482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, C. (1991). Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(3), 445455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Sciences (2014). Considerations in Applying Benefit-Cost Analysis to Preventive Interventions for Children, Youth, and Families – Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies.Google ScholarPubMed
National Conference of State Legislatures (2011). State Budget Update: Fall 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/fiscal/fallsbu2011final_freeversion.pdf (accessed October 14, 2014).Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures (2012). State Budget Update: Summer 2012. http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/fiscal/SummerSBU2012_Free.pdf (accessed October 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J. & Thomas, J. (2014). A Systematic Review of Barriers to and Facilitators of the Use of Evidence by Policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14(2), http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-14-2.pdf (accessed June 5, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/35258828.pdf (accessed October 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Patton, M. (2008). Utilization–Focused Evaluation. (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative. The Pew Charitable Trusts, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/pew-macarthur-results-first-initiative (accessed October 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, E. & Adler, M. D. (1999). Rethinking Cost-Benefit Analysis. 109 Yale Law Journal,165248.Google Scholar
Preskill, H. & Torres, R. T. (1999). Building Capacity for Organizational Learning Through Evaluative Inquiry. Evaluation, 5(1), 4260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, K. (1990). Equilibrium Political Budget Cycles. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 2136.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J. A.(2010). 52 Experiments with Regulatory Review. Institute for Policy Integrity, http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/52_Experiments_with_Regulatory_Review.pdf  (accessed October 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Shaffer, M. (2010). Multiple Account Benefit-Cost Analysis – A Practical Gide for the Systematic Evaluation of Project and Policy Alternatives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. & Morrall, J. F. (2012). The Triumph of Regulatory Politics: Benefit-Cost Analysis and Political Salience. Regulation & Governance, 6, 189206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulha, L. M. & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation Use: Theory, Research and Practice Since 1986. American Journal of Evaluation, 18, 195208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The Cost-Benefit State: The Future of Regulatory Protection. United States: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
The Pew Charitable Trusts (2013). State Health Care Spending – Health Care Spending Slowdown? Not for States and Localities. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.Google ScholarPubMed
The Pew Charitable Trusts (2014). State, Local Government Spending on Health Care Grew Faster Than National Rate in 2012. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
Thoenig, J. (2000). Evaluation as Usable Knowledge for Public Management Reforms. Evaluation, 6(2), 217229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiller, E. H. (2002). Resource-Based Strategies in Law and Positive Political Theory: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Like. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 14531472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1992). Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs. Washington, DC (Circular No. A-94 Revised).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2003). Regulatory analysis. Washington, DC (Circular A-4).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Budget and Management (2012). Use of evidence and evaluation in the 2014 budget. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Budget and Management [memorandum].Google Scholar
VanLandingham, G. (2011). Escaping the Dusty Shelf – Legislative Oversight Agencies’ Efforts to Promote Utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, A. & Weimer, D. (2010). An Assessment of Important Issues Concerning the Application of Benefit-Cost Analysis to Social Policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 1(1), 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. (1995). Fatal Trade-Offs: Public and Private Responsibilities for Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. (1996). Economic Foundations of the Current Regulatory Reform Efforts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 119134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C. (1989). Congressional Committees as Users of Analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(3), 411431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiteman, D. (1995). Communication in Congress: Members, Staff, and the Search for Information. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Zajano, N. & Lochtefeld, S. (1999). The Nature of Knowledge and Language in the Legislative Arena. In Jonas, K. (Ed.), Legislative Program Evaluation: Utilization-Driven Research for Decision Makers (pp. 322). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R. O. Jr., Davis, T. B., Garland, N. & Scott, T. (2010). Toward Principles and Standards in the Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Benefit Cost Center.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in the States: Status, Impact, and Challenges
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in the States: Status, Impact, and Challenges
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in the States: Status, Impact, and Challenges
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *