Against Feasibility Analysis
Thanks to Emily Buss, Dan Cole, Adam Cox, David Driesen, Frank Easterbrook, Jake Gersen, Martha Nussbaum, Arden Rowell, Adam Samaha, Tom Ulen, Adrian Vermeule, Sasha Volokh, David Weisbach, and participants at a workshop at The University of Chicago Law School for helpful comments, and to Charles Woodworth for excellent research assistance.
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Against Feasibility Analysis on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Against Feasibility Analysis on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Against Feasibility Analysis on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Against Feasibility Analysis on LinkedIn
Feasibility analysis, a method of evaluating government regulations, has emerged as the major alternative to cost-benefit analysis. Although regulatory agencies have used feasibility analysis (in some contexts called “technology-based” analysis) longer than cost-benefit analysis, feasibility analysis has received far less attention in the scholarly literature. In recent years, however, critics of cost-benefit analysis have offered feasibility analysis as a superior alternative. We advance the debate by uncovering the analytic structure of feasibility analysis and its normative premises, and then criticizing them. Our account builds on two examples of feasibility analysis, one conducted by OSHA and the other by EPA. We find that feasibility analysis leads to both under- and overregulation, and we conclude that it lacks a normative justification and should have no place in government regulation.
We would like to thank the workshop participants at University of Michigan Law School, Northwestern University Law School, Notre Dame Law School, University of Toronto Law School, Stanford Law School, and N.Y.U. School of Law; and conference participants at the 2024 American Law and Economics Association Meeting for many helpful comments and suggestions. We are most grateful to Jonathan Morad Artal (Stanford Class of 2025) and Andrea Lofquist (Michigan Class of 2024) for their valuable research assistance and comments on earlier drafts.
We would like to thank the workshop participants at University of Michigan Law School, Northwestern University Law School, Notre Dame Law School, University of Toronto Law School, Stanford Law School, and N.Y.U. School of Law; and conference participants at the 2024 American Law and Economics Association Meeting for many helpful comments and suggestions. We are most grateful to Jonathan Morad Artal (Stanford Class of 2025) and Andrea Lofquist (Michigan Class of 2024) for their valuable research assistance and comments on earlier drafts.
The flexibility to renegotiate can facilitate long-term contracting and thereby beneficial reliance investments and risk allocation. The prospect of modification can induce contracting parties who expect their bargaining power to improve to enter into contracts earlier and realize the advantages of longer-term relationships. Otherwise, those parties might decline to contract or delay until those opportunities realize, thereby foregoing the benefits of long-term risk allocation or reliance investments. The parties decide not only whether, but also when, to make legally binding commitments to each other. Courts should be more lenient in enforcing contract modifications that, prompted by a shift in bargaining power, may have only a redistributive effect. Parties can design under-compensatory damages that would provide a credible threat of breach ex post to facilitate ex post modification. Requiring good faith in modification (along with damages) can constrain possible holdup and protect reliance investments and risk allocation.
For thoughtful comments, the authors thank Jennifer Arlen, Rick Brooks, Kevin Davis, Brian Galle, Jacob Goldin, and participants in workshops at Columbia Law School, Texas A&M University School of Law, and the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting. Ji Young Kim provided excellent research assistance.
For thoughtful comments, the authors thank Jennifer Arlen, Rick Brooks, Kevin Davis, Brian Galle, Jacob Goldin, and participants in workshops at Columbia Law School, Texas A&M University School of Law, and the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting. Ji Young Kim provided excellent research assistance.
For thoughtful comments, the authors thank Jennifer Arlen, Rick Brooks, Kevin Davis, Brian Galle, Jacob Goldin, and participants in workshops at Columbia Law School, Texas A&M University School of Law, and the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting. Ji Young Kim provided excellent research assistance.
The negative moral emotions of guilt and shame impose real social costs but also create opportunities for policymakers to engender compliance with legal rules in a cost-effective manner. This Essay presents a unified model of guilt and shame that demonstrates how legal policymakers can harness negative moral emotions to increase social welfare. The prospect of guilt and shame can deter individuals from violating moral norms and legal rules, thereby substituting for the expense of state enforcement. But when legal rules and law enforcement fail to induce total compliance, guilt and shame experienced by noncompliers can increase the law’s social costs. The Essay identifies specific circumstances in which rescinding a legal rule will improve social welfare because eliminating the rule reduces the moral costs of noncompliance with the law’s command. It also identifies other instances in which moral costs strengthen the case for enacting legal rules and investing additional resources in enforcement because deterrence reduces the negative emotions experienced by noncompliers.
Search costs matter and are reflected in many areas of law. For example, most disclosure requirements economize on search costs. A homeowner who must disclose the presence of termites saves a potential buyer, and perhaps many such buyers, from spending money to search, or inspect, the property. Similarly, requirements to reveal expected miles per gallon, or risks posed by a drug, economize on search costs. But these examples point to simple strategies and costs that can be minimized or entirely avoided with some legal intervention. Law can do better and take account of more subtle things once sophisticated search strategies are understood. This Essay introduces such search strategies and their implications for law.