Recent Research

Susan Dudley

Public Comment: CO2 Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources – Electric Utility Generating Units, Brian F. Mannix, December 2, 2014

Public Interest Comment on DOE's Proposed Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating and Cooling EquipmentSofie E. Miller, December 1, 2014

Stakeholder Participation and Regulatory Policymaking in the United States, Steven J. Balla & Susan E. Dudley, November 7, 2014

Public Interest Comment on the Proposed Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act, Tracy Mehan, November 7, 2014

Public Interest Comment on the CFPB's Proposed Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)Lindsay M. Scherber, October 29, 2014

Public Interest Comment on NHTSA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications, Gerald W. Brock & Lindsay M. Scherber, October 21, 2014

Australia’s Regulatory 'Bonfire'Jeff Bennett & Susan E. Dudley, Regulation Magazine, Fall 2014

Looking Back to Move AheadSofie E. Miller, Regulation Magazine, Fall 2014

Tight Budgets Constrain Some Regulatory Agencies, But Not All, Susan E. Dudley & Melinda Warren, Regulation Magazine, Fall 2014

What's Wrong with the Back of the Envelope? A Call for Simple (and Timely) Benefit-Cost Analysis, Christopher Carrigan & Stuart Shapiro, October 7, 2014

Retrospective Review Comment on DOT’s Proposed Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains, Sofie E. Miller, September 29, 2014

Public Interest Comment on the Department of Transportation's Proposed Rule: Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees and Other Consumer Protection Issues, Sofie E. Miller, September 17, 2014

Comment on OMB's Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations, Susan Dudley, Brian Mannix, and Sofie Miller

Valuation of PM 2.5 Reductions in OMB's Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of Federal regulations, Tony Cox, September 2,2014 

Support the GW Regulatory Studies Center

Regulatory Studies Center team picture

Please consider making a tax-deductible gift to support the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and our efforts to improve regulatory policy through research, education, and outreach. Since our founding five years ago, the Center has become a respected non-partisan source for information and analysis on a range of regulatory issues. Our growing network of scholars provides high quality yet accessible academic research on regulatory policy, analysis, and process. Our events bring together a diversity of views on the most pressing regulatory issues, and our free weekly Regulation Digest keeps over one thousand subscribers informed on the latest regulatory developments in government, academia, think tanks, and the media.

COMMENTARY: Improving Regulatory Accountability: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future

Illustration of America wrapped up in red tape
Illustration: Keith Bendis, U.S. Chamber of Commerce website
February 17, 2015
by Susan E. Dudley, Director

There are now more than 70 federal agencies, employing almost 300,000 people, that write and implement regulations. Every year, they issue tens of thousands of new regulations, which now occupy over 175,000 pages of code. Concerns over the accountability of what some have called the "fourth branch" of government have led all three branches of government to take steps to exercise checks and balances. Like the bipartisan regulatory reform efforts of the 1970s and 1980s, reforms today could spur economic growth and improve the welfare of American families, workers and entrepreneurs.


One-Size-Fits-All Regulations are a Bad Deal for Low-Income Americans

February 03, 2015
By Sofie E. Miller, Senior Policy Analyst

We're all affected by regulations; they change our circumstances and the choices that are available. Regulations have benefits and costs, but often the people who benefit from regulations aren’t the same people who bear the costs. Unfortunately, for many regulations, the costs are borne by America's poorest households. Our research at the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center has identified at least three ways in which regulations disparately impact the poor: through upfront costs that may not be offset by long-term savings, by increasing commodity prices, and by over-regulating risks.


Improving Regulatory Accountability: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future

Washington monument with cranes and scaffolding
January 21, 2015
By Susan E. Dudley, Director

This article examines efforts by the three branches of federal government to oversee regulatory policy and procedures. It begins with a review of efforts over the last century to establish appropriate checks and balances on regulations issued by the executive branch, and then evaluates current regulatory reforms that would hold the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch more accountable for regulations and their outcomes.


Transatlantic Regulatory Issues

Susan Dudley with Amb. O'Sullivan

With support from the European Union, the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center hosted a conference on "Enhancing the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership: Reducing Regulatory Barriers" on November 19 and 20, 2014 in Washington DC. The conference featured remarks by senior EU and US policy officials and regulatory experts, and stakeholders exchanged their perspectives and expertise on panels discussing such topics as regulatory analysis, the role for legislators and courts, risk assessment and risk management, public engagement, and regulatory cooperation. To continue the conversation, many of the speakers have written short essays summarizing their remarks. Over the next few weeks, the GW Regulatory Studies Center will post these essays on the conference website.

2014: The Regulatory Year in Review

magnifying glass
December 30, 2014
By Blake Taylor, Policy Analyst

This commentary highlights ten important final rules U.S. federal agencies issued in 2014, from the Volcker Rule to Tier 3 and everything in between. Although the agencies predict each rule will offer substantial public benefits, each rule also has considerable expected costs, some of which outweigh the benefits.


Public Comment: CO2 Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources – Electric Utility Generating Units

EPA flag
December 02, 2014
by Brian Mannix, Visiting Scholar

EPA has proposed state-by-state carbon-intensity targets for electricity generation. Several states and other parties have asked EPA to convert these intensity targets into "mass-based" targets – i.e., carbon caps that could be used in cap-and-trade programs. RSC Visiting Scholar Brian Mannix argues that this would be a mistake; emissions trading can work well under an intensity constraint, and would be far more resistant to rent-seeking than would a cap-and-trade program.