Article: Nonsectarian Welfare Statements

Cass R. Sunstein

Harvard Law School

August 28, 2013

Regulation & Governance, Forthcoming 

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 13-33

Abstract:

How can we measure whether national institutions in general, and regulatory institutions in particular, are dysfunctional? A central question is whether they are helping a nation’s citizens to live good lives. A full answer to that question would require a great deal of philosophical work, but it should be possible to achieve an incompletely theorized agreement on a kind of nonsectarian welfarism, emphasizing the importance of five variables: subjective well-being, longevity, health, educational attainment, and per capita income. In principle, it would be valuable to identify the effects of new initiatives (including regulations) on all of these variables. In practice, it is not feasible to do so; assessments of subjective well-being present particular challenges. In their ideal form, Regulatory Impact Statements should be seen as Nonsectarian Welfare Statements, seeking to identify the consequences of regulatory initiatives for various components of welfare. So understood, they provide reasonable measures of regulatory success or failure, and hence a plausible test of dysfunction. There is a pressing need for improved evaluations, including both randomized controlled trials and ex post assessments.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 12

Keywords: subjective well-being, welfarism, cost-benefit analysis, randomized controlled trials, retrospective analysis

Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2317909>. Acesso em 13 nov. 2013.