This study is a follow-up study of KimㆍJungㆍHur (2008). It tries to review analytically the actual quality level of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) statement in Korea, focusing on the benefit evaluation and measurement. By reviewing the literatures on the evaluation and measurement of benefit, this paper develops a theoretical framework. Based on the analytical framework, this paper analyzes 1,537 RIA statements from June, 2008 to October, 2011 (almost all of RIA statements submitted to Presidential Regulatory Reform Committee).

 

Main results are as follows. First of all, only 87 (5.7%) cases of RIA statements out of all 1,537 total carry at least some objective information regarding benefit of the proposed regulation. Second, the 87 RIA statements show consistent overestimation of benefit to a remarkable extent. In particular, this result was possible mainly by too optimistic and groundless forecasts, especially on actual compliance. And with respect to discount rate, the distributional weight, and double counting, there are few RIA statements which satisfy the minimum theoretical requirements, resulting in arbitrarily consistent overestimation of regulatory benefit.