Be Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis”

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorFarrow, Scott
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-09T17:54:51Z
dc.date.issued2025-06-13
dc.description.abstractEx ante, my primary concerns were about implementation across the wide expanse of federal applications, supporting the supplemental use of distributional weighting, trying to find a supportable middle ground on discounting using the expected value of bounds and a more consistent scope of analysis. Ex post, I felt heard if not followed, perhaps not uncommon for reviewers.
dc.description.urihttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588825000120/type/journal_article
dc.format.extent13 pages
dc.genrejournal articles
dc.identifierdoi:10.13016/m2ghpa-j2ix
dc.identifier.citationFarrow, Scott. “Be Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, ‘Regulatory Analysis.’” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, June 13, 2025, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.12.
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11603/39224
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Press
dc.relation.isAvailableAtThe University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Economics Department
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Faculty Collection
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleBe Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis”
dc.typeText

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
bebriefbeconsistentbeneutralcommentsonusdraftcirculara4regulatoryanalysis.pdf
Size:
386.6 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

UMBC Economics Department
UMBC Faculty Collection