What Is the Bottom Line?

• Date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12164
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Author: Steve Aos

COMMENTARY

ROLE OF THE COST-OF-CRIME

LITERATURE

What Is the Bottom Line?

Steve Aos

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

The singer-songwriter and artist Joni Mitchell, in her famous tune Both Sides Now,

sings “something’s lost when something’s gained, in living every day.”Joni probably

does not regard herself as a benefit–cost analyst, but she seems to have the gist of it.

Although she uses the words “gains” and “losses,” others might say “plusses”and “minuses”

or “advantages” and “disadvantages.” For economists, the nomenclature is “benefits” and

“costs.” The words are different, but the basic idea is the same: What is the bottom line?

The trick, of course, lurks in the details of measuring—that is, monetizing—the benefits

and costs. Dom´

ınguez and Raphael (2015, this issue) provide, for the benefit–cost analysis

of criminal justice policy, an overview of some of the central theoretical and computational

approaches that have been developed over the last several decades and point the way to a

next-steps research agenda.

Over the course of a now long career, I havebeen employed to produce and summarize

benefit–cost information for public policy makers in the legislative and executive branches

of Washington State government. As the director of the Legislature’s Washington State

Institute for Public Policy, I understand the usefulness of evidence-based and benefit–cost

approaches to public policy, as well as their limits. The institute has published and helped

legislators use benefit–cost results for criminal justice policy options as well as many other

areas of public policy.1

Dom´

ınguez and Raphael (2015) make several compelling points for thinking about

the benefit–cost analysis of criminal justice as well as other public policies. Little in their

article does not comport with my own “real-world” observations from the policy trenches.

They spend the bulk of their time reviewing three principal approaches economists

have developed to monetize the cost of a criminal act—hedonic, contingent valuation, and

“bottom-up” analyses. Although their discussion of the three competing pricing approaches

Direct correspondence to Steve Aos, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 110 East Fifth Avenue,

Olympia, WA 98504-0999 (e-mail: steve.aos@wsipp.wa.gov).

1. Readers can view and download the Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s current lists of

benefit–cost findings for a wide variety of public policies at wsipp.wa.gov.

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12164 C2015 American Society of Criminology 633

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 4