Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Amicus Brief Of Economists Ackerman Et Al. In Entergy V. Riverkeepers, Douglas A. Kysar, David M. Driesen
Amicus Brief Of Economists Ackerman Et Al. In Entergy V. Riverkeepers, Douglas A. Kysar, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
A group of academic economists filed this amicus brief in a pending Supreme Court case, Entergy v. Riverkeepers. The amicus brief addresses questions pertaining to the nature and limits of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and thus contributes to the ongoing scholarly debate about CBA's role in environmental law. The case raises the question of whether EPA may consider CBA in writing standards based on the "best technology available for minimizing environmental impacts" from intake of water to cool industrial facilities. This intake kills fish and disrupts eco-systems. The brief explains that cost-benefit balancing may be inappropriate for an agency implementing foundational …
Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral?, David M. Driesen
Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral?, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) owes much of its appeal to its image as a neutral principle for deciding upon the appropriate stringency of environmental, health, and safety regulation. This article examines whether CBA is neutral in effect, i.e. whether it sometimes makes regulations more stringent or regularly leads to weaker health, safety and environmental protection. It also addresses the question of whether CBA offers either an objective value-neutral method or procedural neutrality. This Article shows that CBA has almost always proven anti-environmental in practice and that, in many ways, it is anti-environmental in theory. It examines the practice of the Bush …
Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?, David M. Driesen
Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
This article explores the question of whether contemporary regulatory reformers' attitudes toward government regulation have anything in common with those of the Lochner-era Court. It finds that both groups tend to favor value-neutral law guided by cost-benefit analysis over legislative value choices. Their skepticism toward redistributive legislation reflects shared beliefs that regulation often proves counterproductive in terms of its own objectives, fails demanding tests for rationality, and violates the natural order. This parallelism raises fresh questions about claims of neutrality and heightened rationality that serve as important justifications for modern regulatory reform.
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasibility Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasibility Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasability Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasability Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
This article offers a normative theory justifying the feasability principle found in many environmental statutes. It then uses this theory to shine light on the regulatory reform debate. The feasability principle precludes widespread plant shutdowns while maximizing the stringency of regulation that does not have this outcome. The feasability principle provides meaningful guidance regarding both maximum and minimum stringency and a reasonable democratically chosen response to distributional concerns. Pollution's tendency to concentrate severe harms upon randomly selected pollution victims justifies the stringency of this approach. Normally, cost concerns cannot justify failure to protect people from death, illness, and ecological destruction. …