Skip to main content Accessibility help

Bureaucratic Benefit-Cost Analysis and Policy Controversy

  • Ryan P. Scott (a1), Tyler A. Scott (a2) and Richard Zerbe (a3)


Critiques of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) are usually made on theoretical or methodological grounds; however, understanding how BCA is actually used in decision-making processes is critical if BCA is to inform policy-making. Our paper examines how the implementation of BCA within policy decision-making processes can serve to increase, rather than alleviate, controversy. This runs contrary to the standard assumption that BCA improves decision-making by providing objective data that serves as a basis for policy consensus. To frame this issue, we engage the literature on the role of science in policy decisions and the role of bureaucrats in understanding and implementing policy research. We introduce the concept of “Bureaucratic BCA” as a framework for the practical application of BCA; Bureaucratic BCA does not refer to BCA specifically conducted by bureaucrats or a lesser, technically inferior version of BCA, but rather acknowledges that BCA plays an interactive role within bureaucratic decision-making processes rather than simply serving as a sterilized information input. We show how the dynamics of BCA within the policy process can make BCA a source of controversy and waste rather than an aid to policy efficiency. In light of the Bureaucratic BCA framework, we provide recommendations as to how BCA can be implemented more productively.


Corresponding author



Hide All
Anderson, I. E.(1948). Floods of the Puyallup and Chehalis River Basins Washington. Water-Supply Paper. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, US GPO.
Barry, J. M. (2007). Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 59103). Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R. & Weimer, D. L.(2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A. & Weimer, D. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boardman, A., Vining, A. & Waters, W. G. (1993). Costs and benefits through bureaucratic lenses: example of a highway project. J. Policy Analysis and Management, 12(3), 532555.
Caulkins, J. P. (2002). Using models that incorporate uncertainty. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(3), 486491.
Cech, T. V. (2009). Principles of Water Resources: History, Development, Management, and Policy. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Chehalis Basin Flood Authority (2008). Chehalis Basin Flood Authority Meeting Notes. Chehalis, WA.
Chehalis Basin Flood Authority (2009). Approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Lewis County, Acting as the Lead Agency for the Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority and Public Utility District No. 1 for Funding of a Phase II Study of Water Retention Facilities for Flood Control. Resolution No. 09-129.
Chehalis Basin Partnership (2008). Meeting Summary: Chehalis Basin Partnership. Rochester, Washington.
Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority (2008). An Interlocal Agreement Among the Communities of the Chehalis River Basin for Study, Analysis, and Implementation of Flood Control Projects to Protect the Chehalis River Basin. Lewis County, Washington.
Cook, J. H. (2013). Principles and standards for benefit-cost analysis of public health preparedness and pandemic mitigation programs. In Scott Farrow, R. & Zerbe, Richard O. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council Governments (2009). Lewis County 2007 Flood Disaster Recovery Strategy.
EES Consulting (2011). Chehalis River Flood Water Retention Project Phase IIB Feasibility Study.
Farrow, R. S. & Viscusi, W. K. (2011). Towards principles and standards for the benefit-cost analysis of safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(03), 125.
Farrow, S. & Zerbe, R. O. (2013). Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Ohlson, D. & Mcdaniels, T. L. (2006). Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research, 9(7), 717735.
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.
Hintz, N. C.(1982). Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Study. Seattle, WA.
Hurley, P.(1931). Report from the Chief of Engineers on Chehalis River Wash., Covering Navigation, Flood Control, Power Development, and Irrigation. Washington, DC.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1982). Professional roles for policy analysts: a critical assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(1), 88100.
Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395412.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Keeler, A. G. (2016). A modest proposal for the extension of nonmarket valuation methods. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 719724.
Krupnick, A., Morgenstern, R., Batz, M., Nelson, P., Burtraw, D., Shih, J.-S. & McWilliams, M. (2006). In Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices under Uncertainty. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Lewis County Public Utility District (2008). Concept Paper: Discussion of Chehalis River Basin Flooding and Solutions. Chehalis WA.
Lewis County Public Utility District (2009). Chehalis River Water Retention Facilities Potential Study: DRAFT.
Lipton, D., Lew, D. K., Wallmo, K., Wiley, P. & Dvarskas, A. (2015). The evolution of non-market valuation of US coastal and marine resources. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics,(1), 631.
Loomis, J. B. (2014). Economic valuation: concepts and empirical methods. In Fisher, M. M. & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Science (pp. 973992). New York, NY: Springer.
Merrifield, J. (1997). Sensitivity analysis in benefit cost analysis: a key to increased use and acceptance. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(3), 8292.
Morgan, M. G., Henrion, M. & Small, M. (1992). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(2), 175220.
Partnership, Chehalis Basin (2009). Chehalis Basin Partnership Organization and Membership.
Poor, A., Lindquist, K. & Wendt, M.(2008). Transportation Synthesis Report: Flooding in the Chehalis River Basin: Synthesis, Washington State Department of Transportation.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: In Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Postman, D.(2007). Bush Authorizes Flood Aid for Individuals in Lewis and Grays Harbor Counties. December 9, The Seattle Times.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385403.
Schwartz, E.(2009). Chehalis Tribe to Vote Against Dam Funding. March 18, The Chronicle.
Seawright, J. & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(June), 295308.
Secretary of War (1944). Chehalis River and Tributaries, Washington Letter from the Secretary of War. Washington DC, GPO.
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc, and Triangle Associates (2003). Multi-Purpose Water Storage Assessment. Chehalis Basin Partnership.
The Chronicle (2009). Flood Authority Moves Forward on Upper Chehalis River Dam Study.
Tufte, E. R. & Weise Moeller, E. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Vol. 36. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
US Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Project Report Final General Reevaluation.
US Army Corps of Engineers (2012). Centralia Flood Risk Management Project: Draft Closeout Report.
Vining, A. & Weimer, D. L. (2010). An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 1(01), 140.
Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. R. (2010). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolcher, L. E. (2007). Senseless kindness: the politics of cost-benefit analysis. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 25(1), 157.
Zerbe, R. O., Davis, T. B., Garland, N. & Scott, T. (2013). In Scott Farrow, R. & Zerbe, Richard O. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Zerbe, Richard. O. & Scott, Tyler. A. (2015). Benefit-cost analysis and integrated data systems. In Fantuzzo, John & Culhane, Dennis P. (Eds.), Actionable Intelligence: Using Integrated Data Systems to Achieve a More Effective, Efficient, and Ethical Government. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed