Achieving Regulatory Policy Objectives: An Overview and Comparison of U.S. and EU Procedures, Susan Dudley & Kai Wegrich, March 2015
Improving Regulatory Accountability: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future, Susan Dudley, January 21, 2015
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 Equipment, Sofie 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 Ahead, Sofie 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
The GW Regulatory Studies Center's mission is to improve regulatory policy by raising awareness of regulations’ effects through research, education, and outreach.
The Center is a leading source for applied scholarship in regulatory issues, and a training ground for anyone who wants to understand the effects of regulation and ensure that regulatory policies are designed in the public interest.
What's New from the Regulatory Studies Center
Achieving Regulatory Policy Objectives: An Overview and Comparison of U.S. and EU Procedures
Improving Regulatory Accountability: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future
One-Size-Fits-All Regulations are a Bad Deal for Low-Income Americans
2014: The Regulatory Year in Review
Reducing Regulatory Barriers to Transatlantic Trade
Public Comment: CO2 Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources – Electric Utility Generating Units
What's New in the Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda?
Stakeholder Participation and Regulatory Policymaking in the United States
What's Wrong with the Back of the Envelope? A Call for Simple (and Timely) Benefit-Cost Analysis
This paper aims to provide a descriptive analysis of procedural differences in regulatory development between the United States and the European Union to serve as a factual basis for understanding the regulatory challenges and opportunities for transatlantic trade. It summarizes regulatory procedures in each jurisdiction, dividing the process for establishing regulations into four stages: 1) agenda setting, 2) regulatory development, 3) final determination and opportunities for challenge, and 4) implementation and enforcement. After presenting the procedures in the U.S.
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.
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.
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.
Regulatory systems that "promote competitive markets, secure property rights, and intervene to correct market failures rather than to increase state influence" are not only more conducive to greater economic growth and public welfare within countries, but they can support international trade and investment. As our economies become more global, and the EU and U.S. work to reduce tariffs and explicit trade barriers, regulations are emerging as more important and significant barriers to trade.
Public Comment: CO2 Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources – Electric Utility Generating Units
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.
The Fall 2014 Unified Agenda identifies 3,415 regulatory actions at different stages of development. Of these, 629 have recently been completed, and 465 are long-term. The Agenda classifies the remaining 2,321 as active regulatory actions. Interestingly, of the 599 regulatory actions listed in the Agenda for the very first time, over 40 percent are listed as Final or Completed rules, of which 11 were economically significant.
Regulation is one of the most common and important ways in which public policy is made and implemented in the United States. Agencies of the federal government issue thousands of regulations on an annual basis. Given the importance of regulation, an underlying concern regards the nature of stakeholder participation in the regulatory process. In one respect, stakeholder participation is salient as a means through which information about the economic and political ramifications of regulations is generated.
Benefit-cost analysis has been criticized by observers across the ideological spectrum for as long as it has been part of the rulemaking process. Still, proponents and detractors agree that analysis has morphed into a mechanism often used by agencies to justify regulatory decisions already made. Carrigan & Shapiro argue that a simpler analysis of more alternatives conducted earlier in the process can resuscitate it as a tool to inform policy.
Will the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Proposed Standards for Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica Reduce Workplace Risk?
This article finds that OSHA's proposed rule would contribute little in the way of new information, particularly since it is largely based on information that is at least a decade old—a significant deficiency, given the rapidly changing conditions observed over the last 45 years. The article concludes with recommendations for alternative approaches that would be more likely to generate information needed to improve worker health outcomes.
Public Comment: Prepaid Accounts Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)
This Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or “Bureau”) proposed rule would extend various consumer protections to prepaid account products. Protections for traditional bank account and credit products now exist through Regulation E, which governs electronic funds transfers, and Regulation Z, which governs the use of consumer credit. However, prepaid accounts such as debit cards that can be pre-loaded with funds are currently unregulated. CFPB proposes to amend Regulation E and Regulation Z to apply existing and new protections to these relatively new financial products by imposing various information disclosure, limited liability, error resolution, and consumer credit requirements. Before proceeding, CFPB should gather more updated information on the prepaid debit card market about sellers and buyers of prepaid cards, as required by statute. As this proposal stands, it is likely to increase costs and may reduce access with little or no discernible benefits for card users.
This article raises issues with the Consumer Product Safety Commission's proposal to regulate recreational off-highway vehicles, commonly referred to as side by sides. CPSC issues rules to mitigate "unreasonable risks." In order to deem a risk as either reasonable or unreasonable, it is necessary to have information on the risk rate. The CPSC, however, proposed this rule without reliable information on the rates of injury and death associated with use of side by sides. Additionally, it is possible that the proposal rule, if enacted, would have a negative impact on consumer surplus if the safety standards make the products undesirable. Such a loss, however, is absent in the Commission's assessment of expected benefits and costs.
EPA’s quantitative risk estimate (QRA) provides no legitimate reason to believe that the proposed action is “requisite to protect public health” or that reducing the ozone standard further will cause any public health benefits. Given EPA’s information and the unquantified model uncertainty that remains, there is no sound technical basis for asserting with confidence, based on the models and analyses in EPA’s ozone risk assessment, that an ozone standard of 65 ppb would be any more protective than 70 ppb, or that 80 ppb is less protective than 60 ppb. To the contrary, available data suggest that further reductions in ozone levels will make no difference to public health, just as recent past reductions in ozone have had no detectable causal impact on improving public health.
This Handbook brings together a collection of leading international authors to reflect on the influence of central contributions, or classics, that have shaped the development of the field of public policy and administration. Each classic is discussed by a leading international scholars. They offer unique insights into the ways in which individual classics have been received in scholarly debates and disciplines, how classics have shaped evolving research agendas, and how the individual classics continue to shape contemporary scholarly debates. In doing so, this volume offers a novel approach towards considering the various central contributions to the field.
This paper aims to provide a descriptive analysis of procedural differences in regulatory development between the United States and the European Union to serve as a factual basis for understanding the regulatory challenges and opportunities for transatlantic trade. It summarizes regulatory procedures in each jurisdiction, dividing the process for establishing regulations into four stages: 1) agenda setting, 2) regulatory development, 3) final determination and opportunities for challenge, and 4) implementation and enforcement. After presenting the procedures in the U.S. and EU, the paper compares how the shared goals for achieving a regulatory system that is evidence based, transparent, and accountable are achieved in the two jurisdictions.
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.