Disgust, Sincere Bias, and Bedeviled Cost-Benefit Analysis : A Psychological Response to Reviving Rationality

This is a response to Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz's book Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, published as part of a symposium at Notice and Comment, the blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation and ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice. The response argues that even thoughtful deliberative arguments in favor of (improved) regulatory cost-benefit analysis, such as those presented by Livermore & Revesz, may struggle to address objections to cost-benefit analysis that are emotional and motivational. In particular, the troubled analyses of the Trump administration may have emotionally "spoiled" cost-benefit analysis for some observers, even as motivated reasoning may interfere with others' ability to recognize the value of careful accounting for regulatory benefits as well as regulatory costs. Because motivated reasoning blurs the lines between what is instrumental and what is sincere, it creates challenges in distinguishing sincere bias from purposeful deceit, and should give us pause when categorizing political positions regarding regulatory cost-benefit analysis as pretextual or deceptive