Frequently papers and news sites report on various groups suggesting that various impact studies should be carried out when any new legislation or regulations are drafted.
Typically this takes the form of experts in the field, say environmental experts suggesting that any new legislation should be analyzed to see what impact the new legislation may have on the environment.
These kinds of impact studies may occasionally make sense. However, critical journalists should point out that calling for systematic impact studies really also (only?) serves the interests of the experts in the field. Mandatory impact studies carries a cost to the taxpayer, while the experts in the field benefits through higher demand for their services.
In order to mitigate this, my suggestions is that all new legislations and regulations should be subject to economic impact studies, or cost-benefit analysis. This suggestion is of course made only in the interest of the taxpayer. Any insinuations that I propose this because it would benefit me as an economist is cynical and daft.
No comments:
Post a Comment