arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Be Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis”

Scott Farrow

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis2025https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.12article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract Ex ante, my primary concerns were about implementation across the wide expanse of federal applications, supporting the supplemental use of distributional weighting, trying to find a supportable middle ground on discounting using the expected value of bounds and a more consistent scope of analysis. Ex post, I felt heard if not followed, perhaps not uncommon for reviewers.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.12

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{scott2025,
  title        = {{Be Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis”}},
  author       = {Scott Farrow},
  journal      = {Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.12},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Be Brief, Be Consistent, Be Neutral: Comments on US Draft Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis”

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.