Preview

Law Enforcement Review

Advanced search

Cost–benefits analysis in public law

https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2023.7(2).34-42

Abstract

The subject-matter of the research is economic analysis in public law. This method evaluates both costs and benefits of the regulatory measures. When assessing the alternatives, the judges in public litigation take into account their side effects. If an economically effective alternative is found, it should be ensured that it imposes a minimal burden on the rightholder or the costs to third parties.

The purpose of the research is to argue that the cost-benefits analysis should be limited primarily to the economic field. Otherwise, personal, political, and social rights can be conferred with the properties of goods (commodification).

The methodology of research is based on approaches of school “law and economics”. Economic analysis of law makes it possible to construct a scale of constitutional values, albeit not uncontroversial, but universal. This scale offers the important advantage of introducing proportionality for seemingly disparate individual freedoms and public interests. The introduction of material and financial scales, including compensation even for irreparable intangible goods, represents a better solution than the available alternatives.

The main results of the research and the scope of their application. The above-mentioned method consists of assessing the costs and benefits both for the right-holders and for achieving the common good. It is necessary to analyse the costs and benefits of the challenged legal provision to individuals. Then, the governmental costs incurred in using alternative means should be reviewed. The public authorities should not incur excessive organisational or financial costs from a legal alternative that is humane to the individual. 

Due to the objective constraint on public resources, judges take into account future budgetary expenditures.

In constitutional adjudication and administrative litigation, cost-benefit analysis is most effective in the economic sphere. It is easier to ensure the measurability of judicial review, usually in monetary or other material terms. The preparatory works, including the financial and economic justification of draft laws or regulations, may serve as an informational source in reviewing the legislative provisions and administrative acts which entail material costs. The cost-benefit analysis is applicable to non-material sphere. Although such costs generated by regulators are often difficult to assess in public law. A cost-benefit analysis is possible even in the political sphere. At the same time the judges usually restrain itself from assessing the political expediency of legislative decisions and administrative actions. Conclusions. There is a danger of economic analysis being abused in public law. The disadvantages of using this methodology include the possible devaluation of values which are essential for democracy. The abstract common good and reducing public expenditure will prevail over individual freedoms.

 

About the Author

A. V. Dolzhikov
St. Petersburg University
Russian Federation

Aleksei V. Dolzhikov –  Doctor Habilitatus (Dr.habil) in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law

7/9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034

ResearcherID: J-4829-2014; AuthorID: 313427 



References

1. Karapetov A.G. Economic Analysis of Law. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2016. 528 p. (In Russ.).

2. Blokhin P.D. Economic reasoning in constitutional and administrative litigation, in: Gadzhiev G.A. (ed.). Ezhegodnik konstitutsionnoi ekonomiki 2019, Moscow, LUM Publ., 2019, pp. 104–122. (In Russ.).

3. Ovsepyan Zh.I. About interdisciplinary research in constitutional law. Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii = Saratov State Law Academy Bulletin, 2013, no. 4, pp. 150–157. (In Russ.).

4. Troitskaya A. Interdisciplinary Approach in Comparative Constitutional Research. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2017, no. 5, pp. 57–77. DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2017-5-5777. (In Russ.).

5. Kurdin A., Shastitko A. The Usage of Economic Analysis in Antitrust Litigations: the Empirical Investigation. Ekonomicheskaya politika = Economic policy, 2013, no. 4, pp. 91–111. (In Russ.).

6. Avdasheva S.B. Economic analysis for the purposes of applying antitrust laws: what, where, when? Konkurentnoe pravo = Competition law, 2012, no. 1, pp. 5–11. (In Russ.).

7. Adler M., Posner E.A. New foundations of cost–benefit analysis: A reply to Professors Sinden, Kysar, and Driesen. Regulation & Governance, 2009, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 72–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01045.x.

8. Driesen D.M. Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral. University of Colorado Law Review, 2006, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 335–404.

9. Kennedy D. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Entitlement Problems: A Critique. Stanford Law Review, 1980, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 387–446.

10. Rose-Ackerman S. Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2013, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 281–286.

11. Sunstein C.R. The cost-benefit revolution. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2018. 266 p.

12. Torriti J., Ikpe E. Cost–Benefit Analysis, in: Backhaus J., Ramello G.B. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, New York, Springer Publ., 2014, pp. 404–410. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_124-1.

13. Adler M.D., Posner E.A. Introduction. The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, vol. 29, no. S2, pp. 837–842. DOI: 10.1086/468096.

14. Frank R.H. Why is cost-benefit analysis so controversial? The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, vol. 29, no. S2, pp. 913–930. DOI: 10.1086/468099.

15. Nussbaum M.C. The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, vol. 29, no. S2, pp. 1005–1036. DOI: 10.1086/468103.

16. Sykes A.O. The Least Restrictive Means. The University of Chicago Law Review, 2003, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 403– 419. DOI: 10.2307/1600566.

17. Dolzhikov A.V. The constitutional test of necessity: problem statement. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2022, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 124–133. DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(1).124-133. (In Russ.).

18. Arnolds E.B., Garland N.F. The defense of necessity in criminal law: The right to choose the lesser evil. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1974, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 289–301.

19. Epstein R.A. Property and Necessity. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1990, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2–9.

20. Van Aaken A. How to do constitutional law and economics: A methodological proposal, in: Eger Th., Bigus J., Ott C., von Wangenheim G. (eds.). Internationalization of the Law and its Economic Analysis, Commemorative publication for H.-B. Schäfer on his 65th birthday, Wiesbaden, Gabler Publ., 2008, pp. 651–665.

21. Tsakyrakis S. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2009, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 468–493.

22. Khosla M. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? A reply. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2010, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 298–306.

23. Möller K. Proportionality: Challenging the critics. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2012, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 709–731.

24. Urbina F. “Balancing as Reasoning” and the Problems of Legally Unaided Adjudication: A Reply to Kai Möller. International Journal of Constitution Law, 2014, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 214–221.

25. Davidov G. Separating Minimal Impairment from Balancing: A Comment on R. v. Sharpe (BCCA). Review of Constitutional Studies, 2000, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 195–209.

26. Schauer F. Neutrality and judicial review. Law and Philosophy, 2003, vol. 22, no. 3/4, pp. 217–240.

27. Blokhin P.D. Is there room for economic analysis in the theory and practice of constitutional adjudication. Zakon, 2020, no. 12, pp. 86–100. (In Russ.).

28. Mader L. Assessment of the legislation – Contribution to the improvement of the quality of laws, in: Ivliev G.P., Il'ina N.V. (eds.). Otsenka zakonov i effektivnosti ikh prinyatiya, Moscow, State Duma Publ., 2003, pp. 25– 35. Available at ConsultantPlus. (In Russ.).

29. Waldron J. Fake incommensurability: a response to professor Schauer. Hastings Law Journal, 1993, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 813–824.

30. Habermas J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, transl. by W. Rehg. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996. 631 p.


Review

For citations:


Dolzhikov A.V. Cost–benefits analysis in public law. Law Enforcement Review. 2023;7(2):34-42. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2023.7(2).34-42

Views: 392


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2542-1514 (Print)
ISSN 2658-4050 (Online)