Traditionally, benefit-cost analyses focus on average benefits and average costs. However, heterogeneous treatment effects and/or costs are most often present, which means that there is an efficiency potential hidden in the implementation of public programs, if policies can be targeted at those who, net of costs, benefit the most. We introduce efficiency potential defined as the ratio between the net benefit achieved under perfect selection of the individuals with significant positive net benefit of program participation, and the actually realized benefits net of costs. Using data from a randomized control-trial experiment of a Danish return-to-work program combined with rich administrative records and survey data, we find that there is indeed a potential for increased efficiency. Results from the treatment literature indicate that, generally, it may be difficult to harvest the full potential. Our application corroborates this finding.

While much is known about dyslexia in school-age children and adolescents, less is known about its effects on quality of life in adults. Using data from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, we provide the first estimates of the monetary value of improving reading, speaking, and cognitive skills to dyslexic and nondyslexic adults. Using a stated-preference survey, we find that dyslexic and nondyslexic individuals value improvements in their skills in reading speed, reading aloud, pronunciation, memory, and information retrieval at about the same rate. Because dyslexics have lower self-reported levels on these skills, their total willingness to pay to achieve a high level of skill is substantially greater than for nondyslexics. However, dyslexic individuals’ willingness to pay (averaging $3000 for an improvement in all skills simultaneously) is small compared with the difference in earnings between dyslexic and nondyslexic adults. We estimate that dyslexic individuals earn 15% less per year (about $8000) than nondyslexic individuals. Although improvements in reading, speaking, and cognitive skills in adulthood are unlikely to eliminate the earnings difference that reflects differences in educational attainment and other factors, stated-preference estimates of the value of cognitive skills may substantially underestimate the value derived from effects on lifetime earnings and health.

The provision of safe drinking water provides a dramatic example of the inherent complexity involved in incorporating environmental justice (EJ) considerations into the implementation and enforcement of new environmental standards. To promote substantive EJ, implementation policy must be concerned with the net risk reduction of new and revised regulations. The regulatory concern is that higher water bills for low-income customers of small public water systems may result in less disposable income for other health-related goods and services. In the net, this trade-off may be welfare decreasing, not increasing. Advocates of Health–Health Analysis have argued that the reduction in health-related spending creates a problem for traditional benefit-cost analysis since the long-run health implications of this reduction are not considered. The results of this investigation tend to support this contention. An evaluation of the internal structure of consumption expenditures reveals that low-expenditure households can be expected to react to an increase in the relative price of housing-related goods and services due to a water-rate hike by reducing both housing and health-related expenditures. That is, the representative low-expenditure household re-establishes equilibrium by not only decreasing housing-related spending, but also by decreasing spending on health-related expenditures in a modest but significant way. These results reflect the fact that expenditures on housing are a major proportion of overall household spending, and that accommodating drinking water surcharges exacerbates both health and food security concerns for low-expenditures households.

Investment decision rules in risk situations have been extensively analyzed for firms. Most research focus on financial options and the wide range of methods based on dynamic programming currently used by firms to decide on whether and when to implement an irreversible investment under uncertainty. The situation is quite different for public investments, which are decided and largely funded by public authorities. These investments are assessed by public authorities, not through market criteria, but through public Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) procedures. Strangely enough, these procedures pay little attention to risk and uncertainty. The present text aims at filling this gap. We address the classic problem of whether and when an investment should be implemented. This stopping time problem is established in a framework where the discount rate is typically linked to GDP, which follows a Brownian motion, and where the benefits and cost of implementation follow linked Brownian motions. We find that the decision rule depends on a threshold value of the First Year Advantage/Cost ratio. This threshold can be expressed in a closed form including the means, standard deviations and correlations of the stochastic variables. Simulations with sensible current values of these parameters show that the systemic risk, coming from the correlation between the benefits of the investment and economic growth, is not that high, and that more attention should be paid to risks relating to the construction cost of the investment; furthermore, simple rules of thumb are designed for estimating the above-mentioned threshold. Some extensions are explored. Others are suggested for further research.

According to engineering analyses, energy-intensive commercial buildings have ample opportunities to reduce energy use while saving money, but many seemingly profitable strategies go unadopted. This study explores potential barriers to energy- and refrigerant-reducing investments in supermarket refrigeration. While supermarkets are large energy users, energy and refrigerant account for a relatively small proportion of expenditures. However, due to the intensely competitive nature of the industry, reducing refrigeration costs could have a sizable impact on supermarkets’ bottom lines. Given the scarcity of empirical data in this context, we conducted focus groups and interviews with U.S. supermarket representatives to elicit information about potential barriers to investment and used content analysis to qualitatively evaluate results. Participant statements suggest that the rate at which they adopt specific energy-reducing refrigeration technologies and practices correlates fairly well with estimates of expected payback. Uncertainty and imperfect information about the performance of new technologies, high opportunity costs of capital, and tradeoffs with other valued system attributes such as reliability and customer appeal were the most pervasive potential barriers discussed by participants, although split incentives between firms and contractors or employees also played a role for some firms. Our assessment is that these factors have moderately limited or slowed investments in energy-saving refrigeration technologies for many firms; only in the cases of uncertainty/imperfect information and split incentives between firms and contractors or employees are these barriers potentially indicative of market failures. In addition, in several instances we identify ways in which analysts could improve engineering-based net present value calculations to make them more consistent with actual firm decisions.