Public Choice

, Volume 172, Issue 1–2, pp 177–193 | Cite as

Quadratic voting as an input to cost-benefit analysis

  • Jonathan S. MasurEmail author


When agencies regulate, they must calculate the costs and benefits of their regulations. To do this, they must often price non-market goods—for instance, the value of protecting wildlife or the environment. Regulators have typically relied upon contingent valuation surveys to put prices on these types of goods. But contingent valuation surveys are fraught with error and often give rise to implausible valuations that cannot be trusted. Quadratic voting offers a better solution. Agencies should hold quadratic votes over nonmarket goods and use those votes to price the goods at issue.


Cost-benefit analysis Non-market goods Contingent valuation Stated preference Quadratic voting Environmental benefits Regulation 



I thank Eric Posner and Glen Weyl for helpful conversations and suggestions, and Kathrine Gutierrez for excellent research assistance. This work was supported by the David and Celia Hilliard Fund.


  1. Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2005). Prices: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., & Simon, N. B. (2004). Does the value of a statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 769–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, S. M., & Rai, A. K. (2008). Fixing innovation policy: A structural perspective. George Washington Law Review, 77, 1–88.Google Scholar
  4. Bronsteen, J., Buccafusco, C., & Masur, J. S. (2013). Well-being analysis versus cost-benefit analysis. Duke Law Journal, 62, 1603–1689.Google Scholar
  5. Casey, A. J., & Anthony, N. (2015). The death of rules and standards. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  6. Cropper, M., Hammitt, J. K., & Robinson, L. A. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 3, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Justice. (2012). Prison rape elimination act regulatory impact assessment.
  8. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Valuing mortality risk reductions for environmental policy: A white paper.$file/ee-0563-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Green, J., & Laffont, J. (1977). Imperfect personal information and the demand revealing process: A sampling approach. Public Choice, 29, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hausman, Jerry. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lalley, S. P., & Weyl, E. G. (2016). Quadratic voting. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  12. Masur, Jonathan S. (2007). Probability thresholds. Iowa Law Review, 92, 1293–1357.Google Scholar
  13. Masur, Jonathan S. (2016). CBA at the PTO. Duke Law Journal, 65, 1701–1735.Google Scholar
  14. Masur, J. S., & Posner, E. A. (2010). Against feasibility analysis. University of Chicago Law Review, 77, 657–714.Google Scholar
  15. Masur, J. S., & Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate regulation and the limits of cost-benefit analysis. California Law Review, 99, 1557–1599.Google Scholar
  16. Masur, J. S., & Posner, E. A. (2015). Toward a pigouvian state. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 93–147.Google Scholar
  17. Masur, J. S., & Posner, E. A. (2016). Regulatory uncertainty and the problem of unquantified benefits. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  18. Mukhopadhaya, Kaushik. (2003). Jury size and the free rider problem. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 19, 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Posner, E. A. & Weyl, E. G. (2013). A solution to the collective action problem in corporate reorganization. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  20. Posner, E. A., & Weyl, E. G. (2014). Quadratic voting as efficient corporate governance. University of Chicago Law Review, 81, 251–272.Google Scholar
  21. Posner, E. A., & Weyl, E. G. (2015). Voting squared: Quadratic voting in democratic politics. Vanderbilt Law Review, 68, 441–500.Google Scholar
  22. Posner, E. A., & Stephanopoulos, N. (2016). Quadratic election law. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  23. Stephanopoulos, N. (2016). Discounting accountability. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar
  24. Sunstein, Cass R. (2002). The arithmetic of arsenic. Georgetown Law Journal, 90, 2255–2303.Google Scholar
  25. Watts, Kathryn A. (2012). Regulatory moratoria. Duke Law Journal, 61, 1883–1955.Google Scholar
  26. Weyl, E. G. (2012). Quadratic vote buying. (Unpub. m.s.).Google Scholar


  1. Department of Agriculture. (2003). Special areas; roadless area conservation; applicability to the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Federal Register, 68(75), 136.Google Scholar
  2. Department of Homeland Security. (2013). Provisional unlawful presence waivers of inadmissibility for certain immediate relatives. Federal Register, 78, 536.Google Scholar
  3. Department of the Interior. (2010). Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—increased safety measures for energy development on the outer continental shelf. Federal Register, 75(63), 346.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Justice. (2012b). National standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape. Federal Register, 77(37), 106.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Labor. (2013). Employment discrimination against disabled veterans, affirmative action and nondiscrimination obligations of contractors and subcontractors regarding special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, active duty wartime or campaign badge veterans, and armed forces service medal veterans. Federal Register, 78(58), 614.Google Scholar
  6. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register, 59, 5820.Google Scholar
  7. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Approval and promulgation of implementation plans; Tennessee: Prevention of significant deterioration; greenhouse gases—automatic rescission provisions. Federal Register, 77(12), 484.Google Scholar


  1. Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009).Google Scholar
  2. Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations