Time in Cost-Benefit Analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Agencies are accustomed to considering questions of discounting — the process that makes monetary amounts comparable through time. But valuing the future is a distinctive enterprise for reasons that go beyond discounting. This Article explores two basic features of time that create challenges for intertemporal decision making: (1) time’s physical asymmetry, which makes relationships between the present and the future necessarily nonreciprocal, and (2) the subjective experience of time as continuously flowing, which creates definitional challenges in categorizing segments of time as “the future.” Although these features of time may affect any decision procedure, they have particular and concrete implications for the quantitative form of cost-benefit analysis on which American regulatory agencies routinely rely. First, because temporal asymmetry makes present/future relationships nonreciprocal, and because cost-benefit analysis lacks any intrinsic tool for managing distribution, there is a heightened need for supplemental distributional tools when cost-benefit analysis is performed intertemporally. Second, cost-benefit analysis relies upon quantification of the monetized value of future regulatory impacts — a process that depends on identifying the time at which those impacts accrue. Yet time flow creates systematic line-drawing challenges for decision makers who must distinguish between present and future events. To manage these, regulators should at least extend their analyses to the temporal break-even point, or the point in time where aggregate benefits of the rule equal aggregate costs. When decision makers compare future costs and benefits to current impacts, or even to foreign or other impacts, they should be wary of making cross comparisons that do not account for the distinctive qualities of future valuation.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1215-1240
Number of pages26
JournalUC Irvine Law Review
Volume4
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

cost-benefit analysis
asymmetry
valuation
cost
decision making

Keywords

  • Cost-benefit analysis
  • law and regulation
  • time
  • Valuation
  • discounting
  • time flow
  • time asymmetry
  • entropy
  • Quantification
  • regulatory benefits
  • intertemporal impacts
  • line-drawing
  • Coase
  • reciprocal risk

Cite this

Time in Cost-Benefit Analysis. / Rowell, Kristen Arden.

In: UC Irvine Law Review, Vol. 4, 2014, p. 1215-1240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7a4a69ddfb8449bd87c8fec5806619f8,
title = "Time in Cost-Benefit Analysis",
abstract = "Agencies are accustomed to considering questions of discounting — the process that makes monetary amounts comparable through time. But valuing the future is a distinctive enterprise for reasons that go beyond discounting. This Article explores two basic features of time that create challenges for intertemporal decision making: (1) time’s physical asymmetry, which makes relationships between the present and the future necessarily nonreciprocal, and (2) the subjective experience of time as continuously flowing, which creates definitional challenges in categorizing segments of time as “the future.” Although these features of time may affect any decision procedure, they have particular and concrete implications for the quantitative form of cost-benefit analysis on which American regulatory agencies routinely rely. First, because temporal asymmetry makes present/future relationships nonreciprocal, and because cost-benefit analysis lacks any intrinsic tool for managing distribution, there is a heightened need for supplemental distributional tools when cost-benefit analysis is performed intertemporally. Second, cost-benefit analysis relies upon quantification of the monetized value of future regulatory impacts — a process that depends on identifying the time at which those impacts accrue. Yet time flow creates systematic line-drawing challenges for decision makers who must distinguish between present and future events. To manage these, regulators should at least extend their analyses to the temporal break-even point, or the point in time where aggregate benefits of the rule equal aggregate costs. When decision makers compare future costs and benefits to current impacts, or even to foreign or other impacts, they should be wary of making cross comparisons that do not account for the distinctive qualities of future valuation.",
keywords = "Cost-benefit analysis, law and regulation, time, Valuation, discounting, time flow, time asymmetry, entropy, Quantification, regulatory benefits, intertemporal impacts, line-drawing, Coase, reciprocal risk",
author = "Rowell, {Kristen Arden}",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "1215--1240",
journal = "UC Irvine Law Review",
issn = "2327-4514",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Time in Cost-Benefit Analysis

AU - Rowell, Kristen Arden

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Agencies are accustomed to considering questions of discounting — the process that makes monetary amounts comparable through time. But valuing the future is a distinctive enterprise for reasons that go beyond discounting. This Article explores two basic features of time that create challenges for intertemporal decision making: (1) time’s physical asymmetry, which makes relationships between the present and the future necessarily nonreciprocal, and (2) the subjective experience of time as continuously flowing, which creates definitional challenges in categorizing segments of time as “the future.” Although these features of time may affect any decision procedure, they have particular and concrete implications for the quantitative form of cost-benefit analysis on which American regulatory agencies routinely rely. First, because temporal asymmetry makes present/future relationships nonreciprocal, and because cost-benefit analysis lacks any intrinsic tool for managing distribution, there is a heightened need for supplemental distributional tools when cost-benefit analysis is performed intertemporally. Second, cost-benefit analysis relies upon quantification of the monetized value of future regulatory impacts — a process that depends on identifying the time at which those impacts accrue. Yet time flow creates systematic line-drawing challenges for decision makers who must distinguish between present and future events. To manage these, regulators should at least extend their analyses to the temporal break-even point, or the point in time where aggregate benefits of the rule equal aggregate costs. When decision makers compare future costs and benefits to current impacts, or even to foreign or other impacts, they should be wary of making cross comparisons that do not account for the distinctive qualities of future valuation.

AB - Agencies are accustomed to considering questions of discounting — the process that makes monetary amounts comparable through time. But valuing the future is a distinctive enterprise for reasons that go beyond discounting. This Article explores two basic features of time that create challenges for intertemporal decision making: (1) time’s physical asymmetry, which makes relationships between the present and the future necessarily nonreciprocal, and (2) the subjective experience of time as continuously flowing, which creates definitional challenges in categorizing segments of time as “the future.” Although these features of time may affect any decision procedure, they have particular and concrete implications for the quantitative form of cost-benefit analysis on which American regulatory agencies routinely rely. First, because temporal asymmetry makes present/future relationships nonreciprocal, and because cost-benefit analysis lacks any intrinsic tool for managing distribution, there is a heightened need for supplemental distributional tools when cost-benefit analysis is performed intertemporally. Second, cost-benefit analysis relies upon quantification of the monetized value of future regulatory impacts — a process that depends on identifying the time at which those impacts accrue. Yet time flow creates systematic line-drawing challenges for decision makers who must distinguish between present and future events. To manage these, regulators should at least extend their analyses to the temporal break-even point, or the point in time where aggregate benefits of the rule equal aggregate costs. When decision makers compare future costs and benefits to current impacts, or even to foreign or other impacts, they should be wary of making cross comparisons that do not account for the distinctive qualities of future valuation.

KW - Cost-benefit analysis

KW - law and regulation

KW - time

KW - Valuation

KW - discounting

KW - time flow

KW - time asymmetry

KW - entropy

KW - Quantification

KW - regulatory benefits

KW - intertemporal impacts

KW - line-drawing

KW - Coase

KW - reciprocal risk

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 1215

EP - 1240

JO - UC Irvine Law Review

JF - UC Irvine Law Review

SN - 2327-4514

ER -