The methodology underlying, and the estimates incorporated in the Corps of Engineers' economic evaluation of the Arkansas River Basin Chloride Control Project are evaluated and judged deficient in several ways. An improperly specified alternative cost analysis probably results in overestimates of the total regional demand for water, the demand for Arkansas River Water, and the cost‐savings realized with the project in place. The quantitative effect of these errors is not determined. However, other adjustments are identified which are evaluated using the Corps' data. These adjustments reduce B/C from 2.64 to 0.57; principally as a result of corrections for over‐estimates of cost‐savings in steam‐electric generation, and for use of improper discounting procedures and gross output‐earnings ratios.

The relationship between the probability of a teenage birth and various independent variables lepiesenting fecundity, attitudes, resources, and the economic opportunities for a sample of teenage females drawn from the 1980 census is examined. A theoretical framework, based on Becker's model, is employed to describe the birth-decision process and tested using a logit technique. The findings suggest that receipt oi public assistance income and perceived economic opportunities are more important in explaining fertility probabilities among older (18-19 years old) teenagers. Among younger teens, accessibility to family planning and abortion services, and religious attitudes towzcd family planning ate more important predictors of fertility.

WhenHaynes and Larsen gathered self-report and official data from burglars, they found the high cost of recidivistic crime causes probation to cost more than prison. Gray and Olson analyzed the data again, arguing that researchers should measure rehabilitation, the difference between priors and recidivism, rather than recidivism alone. They found that prison may generate so much dehabilitation that it costs more than probation. In this study, the four authors analyze their conflicting results and show how cost-benefit analysis can inform policymakers. udges must frequently decide whether to sentence an offender tõ~ prison or probation. One judge may reason that prison is merely an expensive school for crime. Another may think it deters criminals and keeps them off the streets. Both judges informally compare the costs and benefits of each sentence, but they need more formal comparisons. Cost-benefit analyses lay out the consequences of decisions and weigh them. However, few such studies exist and their results conflict.' When Haynes and Larsen (1984) studied burglars, they found probation costs more than prison. Gray and Olson (1989) analyzed the data again and got starkly different results. In this study, the four authors analyze their conflicting results and show how cost-benefit analysis can inform policymakers.AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors thank

No abstract

No abstract