This article compares the relative merits of feasibility and cost-benefit based regulation, responding to a recent article by Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner on this topic. Normatively, it shows that the lack of correlation between non-subsistence consumption and welfare supports the argument that regulation should be strict, unless widespread plant shutdowns, which would seriously impact well-being, are involved. It demonstrates that a host of practical defects Masur and Posner find in feasibility analysis would infect cost-benefit analysis as well in light of the importance of cost's distribution, the feasibility principle respresents a reasonable effort to politically resolve difficult normative issues.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||28|
|Journal||Harvard Environmental Law Review|
|State||Published - 2011|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law