Efficiency vs. Welfare in Benefit-Cost Analysis: The Case of Government Funding

Redistribution generates equity benefits and deadweight loss. A canonical result in economic theory holds that policymakers generally cannot escape the problem of deadweight loss by redistributing through non-tax rules. Nonetheless, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a revised framework for regulatory analysis in November 2023 that encouraged federal agencies to consider distributional benefits – but not the deadweight loss of redistribution – when choosing which non-tax rules to promulgate. By omitting deadweight loss from distributional analysis, OMB’s framework will lead to inaccurate estimates of the welfare effects of regulatory changes and will leave agencies vulnerable to legal attack on the ground that they have ignored an important aspect of regulatory redistribution in their decision-making. This article illustrates how agencies can incorporate deadweight loss into distributional analysis and thereby place their redistributive rules on firmer economic and legal footing. It shows how the “elasticity of taxable income” approach – widely used by tax economists – can be modified to the regulatory context so that agencies can estimate the deadweight loss of redistributive regulations while incurring relatively modest additional analytical burdens. Explicitly incorporating deadweight loss into distributional analysis will provide the public with a more accurate view of the welfare consequences of regulatory actions and will make regulations more robust to legal challenges.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Redistributive Regulations and Deadweight Loss

Hemel

2023

The Global Burden of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing Benefit–Cost Analysis and Social Welfare Analysis

Ferranna

2024

This article discusses the difference between benefit–cost analysis (BCA) and social welfare analysis in the evaluation of pandemic preparedness policies. Two social welfare approaches are considered: utilitarianism and prioritarianism. BCA sums the individuals’ monetary equivalents of the pandemic impacts. Social welfare analysis aggregates individuals’ well-being impacts. The aggregation rule identifies the normative judgments about what is fair. This article shows that the two methods yield very different estimates of the value of avoiding a future pandemic similar to the COVID-19 one. Compared to BCA, considerations about the distribution of the costs of the hypothetical intervention play a major role in the estimate of both utilitarian and prioritarian pandemic burdens: The more progressive the distribution of the costs is, the larger the net benefits of preventing the pandemic. In contrast, the BCA pandemic burden is indifferent to the distribution of the intervention costs. In addition, BCA tends to underestimate the burden suffered by low-income countries compared to social welfare analysis.

Why Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Social Welfare Function Is Not Society’s Social Welfare Function

Viscusi

2024

In 2023, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance documents that specified new procedures for assessing prospective government regulations (Circular A-4) and economic policies more generally (Circular A-94). These revisions to long-standing guidance were not minor updates but shifted policy analyses from an efficiency-oriented perspective to a redistributive approach. OMB broadened the guidelines for reporting distributional consequences of policies and also specified how policy impacts on different income groups should be weighted. The weights assume that the social welfare function is governed by the sum of identical individual utility functions, each of which exhibits a substantial rate of diminishing marginal utility of income. The resulting weights provide a premium for households below the median-income level and a considerable penalty for those at higher-income levels. Application of the weights to property losses creates potentially substantial inefficiencies. If based on current empirical evidence on the income elasticity of the value of a statistical life rather than assuming that there is a complete offset of the weights, application of the weights to mortality risk valuation would generate inequities in protection.