Loading...
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court
Sinden, Amy
Sinden, Amy
Citations
Altmetric:
Genre
Journal article
Date
2014
Advisor
Committee member
Group
Department
Permanent link to this record
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6597
Abstract
This article looks at the ongoing debate over the use of cost-benefit analysis in agency rulemaking through a case study of a set of EPA power plant regulations that brought that debate before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. In the briefing before the Court, a peculiar pattern emerged: the briefs for the environmentalists opposing CBA portrayed it as highly formal, rigid, quantitative, and technical, while the industry and think-tank briefs advocating CBA painted it as informal, based in common sense, and associated with Ben Franklin. These diverging descriptions reflect the fact that cost-benefit analysis is not a monolith but comes in many varieties on a spectrum from informal to formal. Examining the rulemakings leading up to and following the Supreme Court’s opinion, this case study illustrates the importance of clearly defining the term “CBA” and the intellectual sloppiness and irrationality that can result when policymakers fail to distinguish between these very different forms of analysis.
Description
Citation
Amy Sinden, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court, 4 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 1175 (2014).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol4/iss4/4/
Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol4/iss4/4/
Citation to related work
UC Irvine School of Law
Has part
UC Irvine Law Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 4 (December 2014)
ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu