Richard L. Revesz – författare

For decades, administrations of both political parties have used cost-benefit analysis to evaluate and improve federal policy in a variety of areas, including health and the environment. Today, this model is under grave threat.In Reviving Rationality, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz explain how Donald Trump has destabilized the decades-long bipartisan consensus that federal agencies must base their decisions on evidence, expertise, and analysis. Administrative agencies are charged by law with protecting values like stable financial markets and clean air. Their decisions often have profound consequences, affecting everything from the safety of workplaces to access to the dream of home ownership. Under the Trump administration, agencies have been hampered in their ability to advance these missions by the conflicting ideological whims of a changing cast of political appointees and overwhelming pressure from well-connected interest groups. Inconvenient evidence has been ignored, experts have been sidelined, and analysis has been used to obscure facts, rather than inform the public. The results are grim: incoherent policy, social division, defeats in court, a demoralized federal workforce, and a loss of faith in government's ability to respond to pressing problems.This experiment in abandoning the norms of good governance has been a disaster. Reviving Rationality explains how and why our government has abandoned rationality in recent years, and why it is so important for future administrations to restore rigorous cost-benefit analysis if we are to return to a policymaking approach that effectively tackles the most pressing problems of our era.

That America's natural environment has been degraded and despoiled over the past 25 years is beyond dispute. Nor has there been any shortage of reasons why-short-sighted politicians, a society built on over-consumption, and the dramatic weakening of environmental regulations. In Retaking Rationality, Richard L. Revesz and Michael A. Livermore argue convincingly that one of the least understood-and most important-causes of our failure to protect the environment has been a misguided rejection of reason. The authors show that environmentalists, labor unions, and other progressive groups have declined to participate in the key governmental proceedings concerning the cost-benefit analysis of federal regulations. As a result of this vacuum, industry groups have captured cost-benefit analysis and used it to further their anti-regulatory ends. Beginning in 1981, the federal Office of Management and Budget and the federal courts have used cost-benefit analysis extensively to determine which environmental, health, and safety regulations are approved and which are sent back to the drawing board. The resulting imbalance in political participation has profoundly affected the nation's regulatory and legal landscape. But Revesz and Livermore contend that economic analysis of regulations is necessary and that it needn't conflict with-and can in fact support-a more compassionate approach to environmental policy. Indeed, they show that we cannot give up on rationality if we truly want to protect our natural environment. Retaking Rationality makes clear that by embracing and reforming cost-benefit analysis, and by joining reason and compassion, progressive groups can help enact strong environmental and public health regulation.

Cost-benefit analysis -- the formal estimating and weighing of the costs and benefits of policy alternatives -- is a standard tool for governments in advanced economies. Through decades of research and innovation, institutions have developed in the United States, European Union, and other developed countries that examine and weigh policy alternatives as an aid to governmental decisionmaking. Lawmakers in the advanced economies have used cost-benefit analysis to evaluate core environmental and public health questions, such as urban air pollution control, water quality, and occupational safety. Yet despite its broad adoption in the industrialized world, most developing and emerging countries have not yet incorporated cost-benefit analysis into their policymaking process. Because these countries face significant limitations on financial resources and have less ability to shoulder inefficient rules, it is extremely important for their officials to determine which policies maximize net benefits for their societies. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmental Policy, and Emerging Economies examines how cost-benefit analysis can help developing and emerging countries confront the next generation of environmental and public-health challenges. Analysis in the book examines the growing reach of cost-benefit analysis; presents relevant case studies where cost-benefit analysis has been incorporated in the Americas, Africa, Middle East, and Asia; and includes a discussion on the conceptual and institutional issues that must be addressed when adopting cost-benefit analysis in developing and emerging countries. In part because governments in developing and emerging countries have not extensively used cost-benefit analysis, there has been only limited research and discussion of the practice and its potential. Most work that has been done is on the domestic or regional level, and has not been widely shared or distributed within the international academic or policy community. By providing both theoretical and practical discussion of this important new tool, this book makes a valuable contribution to the fields of environmental policy, development studies, and environmental law.

This book provides a comparative analysis of environmental regulation in multi-jurisdictional legal and political systems, focusing on the United States, the European Union, and the international community. Each of these systems must deal with environmental interdependencies that cross local borders. Some transjurisdictional environmental problems are global, including stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Other environmental problems, however, are localized in their effect on health and the environment: for example, municipal waste disposal, many forms of pollution and resource development, and drinking water quality. These varying jurisdictional and environmental circumstances pose the central question of how responsibility for addressing different environmental problems should be allocated among the different levels of decision making and implementation in a multi-jurisdictional system.

This book provides a comparative analysis of environmental regulation in multi-jurisdictional legal and political systems, focusing on the United States, the European Union, and the international community. Each of these systems must deal with environmental interdependencies that cross local borders. Some transjurisdictional environmental problems are global, including stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Other environmental problems, however, are localized in their effect on health and the environment: for example, municipal waste disposal, many forms of pollution and resource development, and drinking water quality. These varying jurisdictional and environmental circumstances pose the central question of how responsibility for addressing different environmental problems should be allocated among the different levels of decision making and implementation in a multi-jurisdictional system.

Originally published in 1995, Analyzing Superfund outlines the key issues of the superfund reauthorization debate in the United States. The Superfund law faced criticism for being wasteful, inefficient and expensive. These papers sought to shed light on this argument in relation to clean-up standards, the liability regime, transaction costs and natural resource damage. This title will be of interest to students of Environmental Studies and professionals