Search results

Because of the dramatic increase in health care costs and the fact that more people are retiring earlier and living longer, the issue of post retirement benefit costs other than pensions has become a topic of great interest to issuers and users of financial statements.The Financial Accounting Standards Board is in the process of requiring corporations to report these expected future post retirement costs as liabilities. This paper examines the proposed treatment of post retirement benefits costs and discusses alternative strategies a company may adopt to prepare for implementation of the standard.

RECENT YEARS have witnessed the proliferation of applications of cost‐benefit analysis to public sector expenditure. Cost‐benefit analysis is a method of decision‐making which seeks to quantify the benefits that are obtainable from a given course of action, to express them in financial terms (or in terms of financial equivalents) and then to deduct the estimated social and financial costs so that the results of the course of action may be assessed, valued and expressed in monetary terms. Quantification of actual financial costs and benefits poses no difficulties, but it has been shown elsewhere that the quantification of social costs and benefits often poses considerable problems. Some social benefits, such as the value of time‐saving, can be quantified reasonably successfully (using, for example, financial equivalents of time saved in terms of average wages or average salaries of the individuals concerned), but others, such as the measurement of alleviation of suffering or the assessment of degrees of incapability in nursing care, have no adequate financial equivalents.

In our era of scarcity, there is renewed interest in weighing benefits against costs. Today, library managers must do more than set goals; they must also consider the cost of attaining the goals. The methodology for this kind of assessment has been around for decades. Most depend on certain common elements: how to analyze and measure costs, benefits, and discount factors, and how to apply decision rules.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) calls for far-reaching changes to the way economic activity will occur in EU digital markets. Before its remedies are imposed, it is critical to assess their impacts on individual markets, the digital sector, and the overall European economy. The European Commission (EC) released an Impact Assessment in support of the DMA that purports to evaluate it using cost/benefit analysis.

An economic evaluation of the DMA should consider its full impacts on dynamic competition. The Impact Assessment neither assesses the DMA's impact on dynamic competition in the digital economy nor evaluates the impacts of specific DMA prohibitions and obligations. Instead, it considers benefits in general and largely ignores costs. We study its benefit assessments and find they are based on highly inappropriate methodologies and assumptions. A cost/benefit study using inappropriate methodologies and largely ignoring costs cannot provide a sound policy assessment.

Instead of promoting dynamic competition between platforms, the DMA will likely reinforce existing market structures, ossify market boundaries, and stunt European innovation. The DMA is likely to chill R&D by encouraging free riding on the investments of others, which discourages making those investments. Avoiding harm to innovation is critical because innovation delivers large, positive spillover benefits, driving increases in productivity, employment, wages, and prosperity.

The DMA prioritizes static over dynamic competition, with the potential to harm the European economy. Given this, the Impact Assessment does not demonstrate that the DMA will be beneficial overall, and its implementation must be carefully tailored to alleviate or lessen its potential to harm Europe’s economic performance.

The application of benefit–cost analysis principles by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to a major infrastructure investment proposal – the expansion of Chicago O’Hare International Airport – is analyzed. The City of Chicago is proposing a major physical expansion of O’Hare Airport, which is but one of the alternative solutions to the high level of passenger delays that are currently experienced. The FAA must approve benefit–cost analyses done by the City in order for it to be eligible for federal funding. In the course of this process, the City has prepared two alternative benefit–cost studies of the proposed expansion. The analytic framework and empirical approach of both analyses is described, the results summarized, and the methods and estimates critiqued. It is concluded that neither study provides an estimate of net national benefits that meets minimal accepted professional standards. Finally, an overall assessment of the federal government process in considering and approving benefit–cost studies is provided, and suggestions for improving this process are offered.

The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analyses, but it has also been widely criticized as ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest the use of an aggregate measure (KHM) instead of KH, where M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that all goods for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as economic goods. This addition, however, runs up against objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.

Benefit–cost analysis took root in the U.S. at the federal level in the 1930s with the use of the method by the Army Corps of Engineers. It now is used widely by government agencies and research organizations. The practice has long been controversial, and it remains so. Some critics find the weaknesses of benefit–cost analysis to be so severe as to warrant abandoning its practice.

Employer-provided benefits are a large and growing share of compensation costs. In this paper, I consider three factors that can affect the value created by employer-sponsored benefits. First, firms have a comparative advantage (e.g., due to scale economies or tax treatment) in purchasing relative to employees. This advantage can vary across firms based on size and other differences in cost structure. Second, employees differ in their valuations of benefits and it is costly for workers to match with firms that offer the benefits they value. Finally, some benefits can reduce the marginal cost to an employee of extra working time. I develop a simple model that integrates these factors. I then generate empirical implications of the model and use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to test these implications. I examine access to employer-provided meals, child care, dental insurance, and health insurance. I also study how benefits are grouped together and differences between benefits packages at for-profit, not-for-profit, and government employers. The empirical analysis provides evidence consistent with all three factors in the model contributing to firms’ decisions about which benefits to offer.