Well-Being Analysis vs. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Christopher J. Buccafusco
Illinois Institute of Technology - Chicago-Kent College of Law
Jonathan S. Masur
University of Chicago - Law School
January 20, 2012
Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming
Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper No. 2013-05
Cost-benefit analysis is the primary tool used by policymakers to inform administrative decisionmaking. Yet its methodology of converting preferences (often hypothetical ones) into dollar figures, then using those dollar figures as proxies for quality of life, creates systemic errors so large as to deprive the tool of value. These problems have been lamented by many scholars, and recent calls have gone out from world leaders and prominent economists to find an alternative analytical device that would measure quality of life more directly. This Article proposes well-being analysis (WBA) as that alternative. Relying on data from the field of hedonic psychology that tracks people’s actual experience of life — data that has consistently survived scrutiny by passing the social science tests of reliability and validity — WBA is able to provide the same policy guidance as CBA without CBA’s distortionary conversion of preferences to dollars. We show how WBA can be implemented, and we catalog exhaustively its superiority over CBA. In light of this comparison, we conclude that there is no reason for CBA to continue as the decisionmaking tool of choice for administrative regulation.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 88
Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, regulation, EPA, welfare, well-being, happiness, life satisfaction, risk, value of life, willingness to pay, QALYAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 22, 2012 ; Last revised: April 16, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.441 seconds