What's New from the GW Regulatory Studies Center

3/7/19 - Forbes, Appliance Standards Are Expensive, And Regressive Too, by Susan E. Dudley

3/7/19 - Written Statement — Wasted Energy: DOE’s Inaction on Efficiency Standards and Its Impact on Consumers and the Climate, by Brian F. Mannix

3/6/19 - Regulation Digest, Vol. 8, No.8, by Bryce Chinault

3/5/19 - Administrative & Regulatory Law NewsThe Shutdown's Rulemaking Ramifications, by Bridget C.E. Dooling

3/4/19 - Consultation, Participation, and the Institutionalization of Governance Reform in China, Working Paper by Steven J. Balla & Xie Zhoudan

2/27/19 - Regulation Digest, Vol. 8, No. 7, by Bryce Chinault

2/14/19 - Regulation Digest, Vol. 8, No. 6, by Bryce Chinault

2/9/19 - Yale Jounal on Regulation, Ferrets Ahead? Trump’s Regulatory “Two-for-One” Litigation Moves on to (at least some measure of) Discovery, by Bridget C.E. Dooling

2/6/19 - Regulation Digest, Vol. 8, No. 5, by Bryce Chinault

2/6/19 - The Government Shutdown's Effect on Regulatory Output, by Daniel R. Pérez

@RegStudies

New Commentaries from the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

Research

Recent working papers and published articles from Center scholars
Photo of the US Capitol

A Brief History of Regulation and Deregulation

March 12, 2019

By: Susan Dudley
The history of regulatory policy in the United States is rich, but its future remains unclear. Susan Dudley provides four key milestones in the development of the current regulatory policy landscape, and posits that we may be in the midst of a fifth milestone being laid, in this article for The Regulatory Review at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Adapting Policy Analysis for Uncertain Futures

Decision Analysis, Muddling-Through, and Machine Learning for Managing Large-Scale Uncertain Risks

March 08, 2019

By Louis Anthony Cox, Jr.
As part of a GW Regulatory Studies Center series of working papers on “Adapting Policy Analysis for Uncertain Futures,” Tony Cox, builds on Charles Lindblom’s research on the limits of rational-comprehensive decisionmaking, to provide insights on how machine learning can help individuals and institutions make better informed decisions — improving society’s experience of ‘muddling through’ policymaking under uncertainty.

Adapting Policy Analysis for Uncertain Futures

Responsible Precautions for Uncertain Environmental Risks

March 08, 2019

By W. Kip Viscusi
As part of a GW Regulatory Studies Center series of working papers on “Adapting Policy Analysis for Uncertain Futures,” W. Kip Viscusi elaborates on best practices for decisionmakers facing low probability, high consequence hazards. Viscusi points out that these uncertain risks often create incentives to pursue suboptimal policy approaches that potentially over commit public resources to less consequential hazards.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Logo

Written Statement — Wasted Energy: DOE’s Inaction on Efficiency Standards and Its Impact on Consumers and the Climate

March 07, 2019

By: Brian Mannix
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing titled, "Wasted Energy: DOE's Inaction on Efficiency Standards and Its Impact on Consumers and the Climate." Research Professor Brian Mannix submitted a written statement on the 40 year history of appliance efficiency standards, and why analysis dating back to the Carter administration is still relevant today.

Hands on computer with Chinese flag

Consultation, Participation, and the Institutionalization of Governance Reform in China

March 04, 2019

By Steven J. Balla & Zhoudan Xie
This article examines the institutionalization of online consultation, a prominent instrument of governance reform in China in which government officials provide interested parties with opportunities to comment on draft laws and regulations over the Internet. The analysis demonstrates that government consultation practices have institutionalized to a greater degree than the citizen feedback that occurs in response to draft laws and regulations. These results point to the conclusion that online consultation is a governance reform that has advanced transparency and (to a lesser degree) public participation, but has not eroded the Chinese Communist Party’s dominance over policymaking.

Photo of Joe Cordes and Daniel Perez

Measuring Costs and Benefits of Privacy Controls: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Estimates

January 30, 2019

By Joseph J. Cordes & Daniel R. Pérez
Co-director Joe Cordes and senior policy analyst Daniel Pérez's article published in The Journal of Law, Economics & Policy draws on the economics of privacy literature to summarize why the costs and benefits of privacy controls should be measured in principle, discusses previous attempts to do so, and generates useful estimates of consumers' valuation of privacy.

The Journal of Law and Politics logo

Improving Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis

January 22, 2019

By Susan E. Dudley and Brian F. Mannix
Across developed countries, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is the principal public policy tool for laying out available information in a way that allows policy makers to make balanced, efficient regulatory decisions in the face of limited resources. However, BCA has limitations. This article examines the institutional and technical factors limiting the use of BCA as a tool for improving regulatory policy and offers some recommendations for reducing those barriers.

Photo of Mark Febrizio and Zhoudan Xie

2018 Year in Review: Top Ten Regulatory Developments

January 14, 2019

By Mark Febrizio and Zhoudan Xie
Just as in 2017, regulatory policy continued to be a focal point of 2018 with key actions ranging from proposed rules to one agency’s establishment of a new economics office to inform regulatory decisions. While not comprehensive, this Regulatory Insight highlights ten important developments related to regulation that occurred in 2018.

White House through the gates

Enduring Principles of Sound Regulatory Analysis

November 27, 2018

By Mark Febrizio
The economic foundations of Executive Order 12,866 underscore its continued importance in regulatory review.
(Article originally published in The Regulatory Review, a publication of the Penn Program on Regulation.)

Bruce Yandle

Bootleggers & Baptists: The Experience of Another Regulatory Economist

November 27, 2018

By Susan E. Dudley
Bruce Yandle conceived the theory of Bootleggers and Baptists after working in government as a young economist in the late 1970s and 1980s. Forty years later, his insights regarding the forces that converge to support government intervention continue to explain many regulatory observations. Applying the theory to her own experience, Dudley finds that while the B&B phenomenon is universal, the nature of winning Baptist arguments can vary depending on administration, and that regulatory institutions can reinforce or counteract B&B pressures.

HHS Deregulatory Actions (FY 2018)

Spotlight: HHS Entries in OIRA’s Latest Regulatory Reform Report

November 26, 2018

By Bridget C.E. Dooling
OIRA recently issued a progress report on EO 13771, the two-for-one initiative, with a present value estimate of $23.4 billion in savings due to actions taken in FY 2018. More than half of these savings came from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). This Regulatory Insight takes a deep dive into the HHS figures and finds significant Medicare paperwork savings, but that the other deregulatory initiatives fall short of providing the kind of regulatory relief that President Trump has promised.

National Telecommunications & Information Administration logo

Public Interest Comment: NTIA's Approach to Consumer Privacy

November 12, 2018

By Daniel R. Pérez
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a request for public comments on developing the administration's approach to consumer privacy. This public interest comment provides an overview of the agency's proposed approach to guide federal policymaking, and provides three core recommendations (1) Privacy regulation should be based on consumers' value, (2) the benefits of regulation should exceed social costs, and (3) future research should be focused on improving benefit-cost analysis of privacy regulations.

EPA logo

Public Interest Comment: EPA's Proposed “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) Rule

October 31, 2018

By Brian F. Mannix
The proposed “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) rule rests on a stronger legal foundation and a sounder economic analysis than the stayed Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular, the choice of a “best system of emissions reduction” (BSER) based on heat-rate efficiency, a measure of CO2 intensity, is much more consistent with the Clean Air Act than was the CPP’s statewide budget approach, as is the decision to use domestic benefits to justify the rule. The proposed reforms to section 111(d) procedures and to the New Source Review criteria are both important and stand on their own right.

Photo of Julian Morris

Public Interest Comment: SAFE Vehicles Rule

October 25, 2018

By Julian Morris
Executive Director of the International Center for Law & Economics and a Senior Fellow at the Reason Foundation - provides insights on the effects of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Rule and the preliminary regulatory impact analysis thoroughly completed by the EPA and NHTSA. This public interest comment discusses the likely effects of the rule on vehicle fuel economy, fuel consumption, the cost of new and used vehicles, safety, and the environment. The author's findings suggest that the new rule will save billions of dollars in economic costs, potentially decrease traffic fatalities, and is unlikely to have a significant negative effect on the environment.

Public Interest Comment Logo

Public Interest Comment: IRS's Proposed Rule on SALT Credits

October 12, 2018

By Jerry Ellig
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has proposed a regulation that would prevent all individual taxpayers from claiming a federal charitable deduction if the taxpayer received a state tax credit equivalent to more than 15 percent of the donation. This comment explains why the proposed regulation is much broader than necessary to address the real problem the IRS seeks to solve: state tax credit programs designed explicitly to aid taxpayers in avoiding the cap on deductibility of state and local taxes.