Practical issues in conducting distributional weighting in benefit‐cost analysis

Abstract A commonly expressed concern about distributional weighting in benefit‐cost analysis is that the informational burden is too high and the practical challenges insurmountable. In this paper, we address this concern by conducting distributional weighting on a number of real‐world examples, covering a range of different types of policy impacts. We uncover and explore a number of methodological issues that arise in the process of distributional weighting and provide a simplified set of steps that we believe can be implemented by practitioners with a wide range of expertise. We conduct sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to test the robustness of our estimates of weighted net benefits to the various assumptions we make, and find that, in general, distributional weighting is no more vulnerable to modeling assumptions and parameter selection than unweighted benefit‐cost analysis itself. We conclude that the concern about the practicability of distributional weighting is, at least in a range of important cases, unfounded.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22669
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Healthcare Policy and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Practical issues in conducting distributional weighting in benefit‐cost analysis

Daniel J. Acland, David H. Greenberg
2 citations
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Healthcare Policy and Management
6.26
article

Practical issues in conducting distributional weighting in benefit‐cost analysis

Daniel J. Acland, David H. Greenberg
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract A commonly expressed concern about distributional weighting in benefit‐cost analysis is that the informational burden is too high and the practical challenges insurmountable. In this paper, we address this concern by conducting distributional weighting on a number of real‐world examples, covering a range of different types of policy impacts. We uncover and explore a number of methodological issues that arise in the process of distributional weighting and provide a simplified set of steps that we believe can be implemented by practitioners with a wide range of expertise. We conduct sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to test the robustness of our estimates of weighted net benefits to the various assumptions we make, and find that, in general, distributional weighting is no more vulnerable to modeling assumptions and parameter selection than unweighted benefit‐cost analysis itself. We conclude that the concern about the practicability of distributional weighting is, at least in a range of important cases, unfounded.

Journal of Policy Analysis and ManagementVol. 44(2)
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Healthcare Policy and Management
6.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.