about jobs advertise subscribe: Email/RSS

GreenBuzz from GreenBiz

Categorized

» About
» Agriculture & Food
» CSR
» Clean Tech
» Climate Change
» Conflicts & Communication
» Conscious Entrepreneurship
» Eco Products
» Energy
» Green Building
» Greenwashing
» Investment & Markets
» MBA
» Management
» Marketing & Branding
» Policy & Government
» Poverty Solutions
» Renewable Energy
» Social Enterprise
» Supply Chain
» Transportation

Worth Your Time

Green Business Links

Sustainabilty

« back to the latest from 3p

May 14, 2008

Rational Regulation: Oxymoron?

descartes.jpg

Following up on the theme developed in their recently released book, “Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health,” authors Richard L. Revesz – dean of New York University’s School of Law - and Michael A. Livermore will launch an Institute for the Study of Regulation at NYU’s law school this summer.

Cost-benefit analyses, the primary means used for decision support and decision making in government regulatory processes, have been overwhelmingly dominated by anti-regulatory rhetoric and vested interests for too long. Environmentalists, rather than fighting to restore balance and more rigorous rationality to the process left the field and concentrated their efforts on trying to persuade lawmakers to remove cost-benefit analysis from the procedural regulatory toolkit, according to Revesz.

That’s not going to happen, he contends. With a new administration coming into office next year, environmentalists need to embrace cost-benefit analysis and use it to better argue and support their positions.

Revesz describes the motivation and aim of the Institute in a May 8 guest essay on the Grist Mill.

“This time, instead of fighting -- futilely -- to end cost-benefit analysis, environmentalists should fight to mend it. For the past three years, my co-author Michael Livermore and I have studied how cost-benefit analysis has been used, and abused, in environmental law.

“These abuses are not inherent in cost-benefit analysis, but have arisen because the debate over how cost-benefit analysis has been dominated by industry trade associations and antiregulatory scholars. The only way to transform cost-benefit analysis into a more neutral tool is to take up the debate, to show where cost-benefit analysis has been twisted to justify and antiregulatory agenda.”

post-continues.gif
our-sponsor-message.gif
email-updates.gif

Comments

Join the Discussion

Be patient. You only need to click once to post your comment, which will appear soon afterwards.

(you may use HTML tags for style)

 

Remember Me?

Comments from other sites:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.triplepundit.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2570

Related stories by keyword:

Search 3p

Latest Posts

Dated Archives


SBI_GIF_160x140_01.gif

mojo-cover-nov08.jpg

live-neutral-logo.gif

PWC_logo.gif

ecosa.gif