From: "William Dickens" > Fred, > You completely misunderstand my point. If a cost benefit analysis > is presented it makes very clear what the assumptions are that lead to > the policy conclusions.
Bill, I don't think I completely misunderstood. I do apologize, however, as I allow myself to gravitate from your purely academic response back into the real world. Your point is well taken, but my mind was on the earlier question. > > Is there a practical way for policy makers to assess the reliability > > and objectivity of CBA? I thought this was an excellent question. How many policy makers do you know that are actually able to understand the necessary variables to arrive at a meaningful assumption in order to evaluate the analysis? I work in government. CBA is seldom used. I would like to see it used more often, but data are relatively sparse due to the disjointed accounting systems and other road blocks (E.g. - collective bargaining agreements). Seldom does a cost center actually represent the work being performed. -Fred Childress ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:33 PM Subject: RE: Cost benefit analysis > Fred, > You completely misunderstand my point. If a cost benefit analysis > is presented it makes very clear what the assumptions are that lead to > the policy conclusions. Thus any debate of the question is going to be > much better informed and much more closely focused on the issues that > matter. Its going to be more logical. I am not saying that a bad CBA > trumps a good verbal argument in deciding an issue. I'm saying that as a > starting point for a debate a bad CBA is still a good point of departure > because it spells out the assumptions and logic that the person > presenting it is making. > - - Bill Dickens > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/03 05:37PM >>> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:52:43 -0500, "William Dickens" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Any CBA is better than no CBA - - even a badly skewed one. Its the > same > > argument for formalizing theory in economics. It makes clear what > your > > assumptions and logic are and makes it easy to identify areas of > > agreement and disagreements between opponents on an issue. - - Bill > > Dickens > > Did I just read what I think I read? > So here is the scenario - a *badly skewed* CBA is used by misguided > (do-gooder) policy makers to influence legislation by defeating a more > reasonable (logical) argument. This CBA had more traction (the bad > science environmentalists had a well funded propaganda campaign) and > the > resultant legislation ended up killing millions of people > (refrigerators > in third world countries no longer able to keep food cold or > pesticides > no longer available to kill mosquitos which carried disease). I find > it > hard to agree that "any CBA is better than no CBA." > > -Fred Childress > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/03 01:57PM >>> > > One problem with applying CBA to policy formulation is ensuring > > reliability > > and objectivity. Too often, CBA is manipulated for predetermined > > policy > > positions. EPA once produced a Regulatory Impact Analysis that > > contended > > that benefits from the phaseout of CFCs are $8 trillion to $32 > > trillion. In > > such cases, CBA does more to confound, rather than illuminate, > > rational > > policy formulation. > > > > Is there a practical way for policy makers to assess the reliability > > and > > objectivity of CBA? > > > > Walt Warnick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Driessnack, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:56 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Cost benefit analysis > > > > > > > > In defense you can say that almost all of the weapons related > > spending > > (Procurement and RDT&E budget - almost half of the budget when you > > consider > > the spare purchases) is accomplished having gone through some CBA in > > the > > process of deciding the approach to develop, procure, and then > maintain > > the > > equipment. An Analysis of Alternative is required along with > > estimates > > (actually by several layers of organizations). > > > > > > > > The other source to look at would be the Federal Acquisition > > Regulations > > (FAR). This policy drives use of CBA for certain purchases. So you > > could > > estimate off of this policy! > > > > > > > > jdd > > > > > > > > John D Driessnack, PMP, CCE/A > > > > Professor, Defense Acquisition University > > > > PMT-250/352, DAU Risk/Tools Subject Matter Expert > > > > DAWIA PM, Acq Logi, FM Level III > > > > NE-Capital Campus, Faculty Department > > > > Program Management and Leadership > > > > 9820 Belvoir Rd, Building 205, Room 115B > > > > Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-5565 > > > > 703-805-4655 (DSN-655) > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > FAX 703-805-3728 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:16 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Cost benefit analysis > > > > > > > > Does anyone know how often CBA is actually used in making policy? > > What > > percent of the federal budget (or state or local) has been > determined > > by > > CBA? > > > > Cyril Morong > > > > > > > Yours in Liberty, > Fred Childress > > LNC Region 5 Alt Representative - http://www.LP.org > > "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just > sit > there." > -Will Rogers > > > >
