Two cheers for feasible regulation: A modest response to Masur and Posner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations


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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-341
Number of pages28
JournalHarvard Environmental Law Review
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'Two cheers for feasible regulation: A modest response to Masur and Posner'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this