Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1

  • W. Kip Viscusi (a1) and Ted Gayer (a2)
Abstract

Behavioral economists have identified certain biases in decision making that lead people to make decisions that harm themselves, but there is insufficient guidance for estimating benefits in the presence of such behavioral failures. This gap in principles and standards for benefit-cost analysis has led government agencies at times to adopt arbitrary and excessive benefit valuations. This article describes an approach to incorporating behavioral market failures into benefit estimation, first by advocating a behavioral transfer test to use before applying behavioral findings from narrow contexts to broader populations subject to regulation, and then by comparing the outcomes from the self-harming behavior to a policy reference point in which people are assumed to be fully informed and to act fully rationally in their own self-interest. This approach, which is grounded on systematic, well-documented, and context-specific findings of behavioral failings, would reduce instances of agencies assuming that behavioral findings in some contexts provide sufficient rationale for overriding consumer preferences in other contexts. It would also establish a consistent approach to government policy by, for example, creating symmetry between advancing policies that seek to discourage consumption of products for which consumers underestimate the health risks and fostering accurate risk beliefs to address erroneous individual choices based on risk overestimation.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*e-mail: kip.viscusi@vanderbilt.edu
References
Hide All
Adler, Matthew D.(2016). Behavioral Economics, Happiness Surveys, and Public Policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
Adler, Matthew D. & Posner, Eric A. (2000). Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis When Preferences Are Distorted. In Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 269311). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Allcott, Hunt & Greenstone, Michael (2012). Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 328.
Bernheim, B. Douglas(2016). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
Bernheim, B. Douglas & Rangel, Antonio (2007). Behavioral Public Economics: Welfare and Policy Analysis with Fallible Decision-Makers. In Diamond, Peter & Vartianen, Hannu (Eds.), Behavioral Economics and Its Applications (pp. 777). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carson, Richard T. & Groves, Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental Resource Economics, 37(1), 181210.
Carson, Richard T., Groves, Theodore & List, John (2014). Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice. Journal of the Association for Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(1/2), 171207.
Chetty, Raj (2015). Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 105(4), 133.
Chetty, Raj, Looney, Adam & Kroft, Kory (2009). Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence. American Economic Review, 99(4), 11451177.
Congdon, William J., Kling, Jeffrey R. & Mullainathan, Sendhil (2011). Policy and Choice: Public Finance through the Lens of Behavioral Economics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
DellaVigna, Stefano (2009). Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315372.
Dolan, Paul & Laffan, Kate(2016). Bad Air Days: The Effects of Air Quality on Different Measures of Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
Ellsberg, Daniel (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643669.
Engström, Per, Nordblom, Katarina, Ohlsson, Henry & Persson, Annika (2015). Tax Compliance and Loss Aversion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(4), 132164.
Farrow, Scott & Zerbe, Richard O. Jr. (2013). Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing.
Farrow, Scott & Viscusi, W. Kip (2011). Towards Principles and Standards for the Benefit-Cost Analysis of Safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(3), 123. Reprinted In Scott Farrow & Richard O. Zerbe, Jr. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis (pp. 172–193). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing.
Finkelstein, Amy (2009). E-Z Tax: Tax Salience and Tax Rates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 9691010.
Foster, William & Just, Richard E. (1989). Measuring Welfare Effects of Product Contamination with Consumer Uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17(3), 266283.
Gayer, Ted & Viscusi, W. Kip (2013). Overriding Consumer Preferences with Energy Regulations. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 43(3), 248264.
Gentry, Elissa Philip & Viscusi, W. Kip (2016). The Fatality and Morbidity Components of the Value of a Statistical Life. Journal of Health Economics, 46(2), 9099.
Graham, Carol(2016). Unequal Life Chances and Choices: How Subjective Well-Being Metrics Can Inform Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
H.M.S. Treasury (2011). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: H.M. Treasury.
Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E. (2002). A Review of WTA/WTP Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426447.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L. (1992). Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 5770.
Kahneman, Daniel & Krueger, Alan B. (2006). Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 324.
Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263291.
Knetsch, Jack L., Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Zong, Jichuan (2012). Gain and Loss Domains and the Choice of Positive and Negative Changes. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(4), 118.
Kniesner, Thomas J., Viscusi, W. Kip & Ziliak, James P. (2014). Willingness to Accept Equals Willingness to Pay for Labor Market Estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(3), 187205.
Layard, Richard R., Mayraz, Guy & Nickell, Stephen J. (2008). The Marginal Utility of Income. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8/9), 18461857.
Levinson, Arik (2012). Valuing Public Goods Using Happiness Data: The Case of Air Quality. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9/10), 869880.
Lichtenstein, Sarah, Slovic, Paul, Fischhoff, Baruch, Layman, Mark & Combs, Barbara (1978). Judged Frequency of Lethal Events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(6), 551578.
Machina, Mark J. & Siniscalchi, Marciano (2014). Ambiguity and Ambiguity Aversion. In Machina, Mark J. & Viscusi, W. Kip (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty (pp. 729807). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Madrian, Brigitte C. (2014). Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 663688.
Mannix, Brian & Dudley, Susan E. (2015). The Limits of Irrationality as a Rationale for Regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 705712.
McKinsey & Company(2009). Electric Power and Natural Gas: Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy_efficiency_full_report.pdf [http://permal.cc/3KXK-GY5F].
Metcalf, Gilbert E. & Hassett, Kevin A. (1999). Measuring the Energy Savings from Home Improvement Investments: Evidence from Monthly Billing Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 516528.
Portney, Paul R. (1992). Trouble in Happyville. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(1), 131132.
Robinson, Lisa A. & Hammitt, James K. (2011). Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(2), 151. Reprinted In Scott Farrow and Richard O. Zerbe, Jr. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis (pp. 317–363). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing.
Shogren, Jason F. & Thunström, Linda(2016). Do We Need a New Behavioral Baseline for BCA? Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
Sloan, Frank A., Viscusi, W. Kip, Chesson, Harrell W., Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn (1998). Alternative Approaches to Valuing Intangible Health Losses: The Evidence for Multiple Sclerosis. Journal of Health Economics, 17(4), 475497.
Smith, V. Kerry (2008). Reflections on the Literature. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 292308.
Smith, V. Kerry & Moore, Eric M. (2010). Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis. Environmental Resource Economics, 46(2), 217234.
Sunstein, Cass R.(2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis, Who’s Your Daddy? Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7 (2), forthcoming.
Sunstein, Cass R. (2014). Valuing Life: Humanizing the Regulatory State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tunçel, Tuba & Hammitt, James K. (2014). A New Meta-Analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(1), 175187.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary of Transportation. (2014) Revised Departmental Guidance 2014: Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analysis, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guidance_2014.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. (2011). Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420d11004.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation. (2011). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/pdf/2011-20740.pdf.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2003). Circular A-4, The White House,http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars_a004_a-4.
Viscusi, W. Kip (2015). Reference-Dependent Effects in Benefit Assessment: Beyond the WTA-WTP Dichotomy and WTA-WTP Ratios. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(1), 187206.
Viscusi, W. Kip (2016). Risk Beliefs and Preferences for E-Cigarettes. American Journal of Health Economics, 2(2), forthcoming.
Viscusi, W. Kip & Gentry, Elissa Philip (2015). The Value of a Statistical Life for Transportation Regulations: A Test of the Benefits Transfer Methodology. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51(1), 5377.
Viscusi, W. Kip, Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason (2008). Estimating Discount Rates for Environmental Quality from Utility-Based Choice Experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(2/3), 199220.
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? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 206 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 396 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.