|
||||
|
||||
Against Feasibility AnalysisJonathan S. MasurUniversity of Chicago - Law School Eric A. PosnerUniversity of Chicago - Law School August 10, 2009 University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 77, p. 657, 2010 Universty of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 480 University of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 274 Abstract: Feasibility analysis, a method of evaluating government regulations, has emerged as the major alternative to cost-benefit analysis. Although regulatory agencies have used feasibility analysis (in some contexts called “technology-based” analysis) longer than cost-benefit analysis, feasibility analysis has received far less attention in the scholarly literature. In recent years, however, critics of cost-benefit analysis have offered feasibility analysis as a superior alternative. We advance the debate by uncovering the analytic structure of feasibility analysis and its normative premises, and then criticizing them. Our account builds on two examples of feasibility analysis, one conducted by OSHA and the other by EPA. We find that feasibility analysis leads to both under- and overregulation, and we conclude that it lacks a normative justification and is unsuitable for government regulation.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 61 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: August 15, 2009 ; Last revised: January 25, 2011Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.469 seconds