Susan Dudley

Recent Research

Examining How Small Businesses Confront and Shape Regulations, by Sofie E. Miller and Daniel R. Pérez, March 29, 2017

Retrospective Evaluation of Chemical Regulations, by Susan E. Dudley, March 20, 2017

The Next Regulatory Czar, by Susan E. Dudley, March 14, 2017

Agency Use of Science in the Rulemaking Process: Proposals for Improving Transparency and Accountability, by Susan E. Dudley, March 14, 2017

Public Comment on OMB’s Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”, by Susan E. Dudley, Brian Mannix, Sofie E. Miller and Daniel R. Pérez

Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis, by Susan Dudley, Richard Belzer, Glenn Blomquist, Timothy Brennan, Christopher Carrigan, Joseph Cordes, Louis A. Cox, Arthur Fraas, John Graham, George Gray, James Hammitt, Kerry Krutilla, Peter Linquiti, Randall Lutter, Brian Mannix, Stuart Shapiro, Anne Smith, W. Kip Viscusi & Richard Zerbe, February 2, 2017

The Risks of Regulating in the Dark, by Sofie E. Miller, January 18, 2017

Ten Regulatory Process Reforms President-Elect Trump Could Undertake, by the GW Regulatory Studies Center, December 8, 2016

Administrative Procedures

magnifying glass

A Proposed Framework for Evidence-Based Regulation

February 22, 2018

By Marcus Peacock, Sofie E. Miller, & Daniel R. Pérez
Policymakers and scholars have given serious thought to how evidence-based approaches can improve policymaking, but using evidence to improve regulatory outcomes requires a separate framework than the one currently in use. This paper details how the regulatory process differs from other federal policymaking and establishes a framework for evidence-based regulation (EBR) to improve regulatory outcomes by planning for, collecting, and using evidence throughout the life a regulation. The authors discuss the main barriers that regulatory agencies face in implementing an EBR approach and advance concrete proposals for overcoming these barriers.

ABA

Putting a Cap on Regulation

June 30, 2017

By Susan E. Dudley
In this Administrative & Regulatory Law News article, Dudley provides a rundown of what President Trump’s two cross-cutting regulatory executive orders do, and how far they might go towards “deconstruction of the administrative state.” She concludes that while regulations cannot be overturned as quickly as the president might like, his orders have the potential to impose some discipline on regulatory agencies, generate a constructive debate on the real impacts of regulations, and ultimately lead to more cost-effective achievement of public priorities.

Kitchen appliances

Reforming the Energy Policy and Conservation Act: Learning from Experience on Energy Efficiency

June 27, 2017

By Sofie E. Miller
The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) grants the Department of Energy the authority to regulate the energy efficiency of everyday consumer appliances like dishwashers and refrigerators. Because these standards affect almost all households and incur such large potential benefits and costs, the underlying statute merits close inspection. This working paper provides seven recommendations for reforming EPCA to ensure that consumers do not bear disproportionate burdens as a result of energy efficiency rules.

Congress

Structure and Process: Examining the Interaction between Bureaucratic Organization and Analytical Requirements

May 11, 2017

By Stuart Shapiro, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar, in the Review of Policy Research
Attempts by politicians to control bureaucratic decisions include both structural and procedural approaches. But how do these two modes of influence interact? This article examines the interaction between bureaucratic structure and one procedural control, the requirement that agencies conduct an analysis of their decisions prior to their issuance. Shapiro looks at this interaction in the context of two types of analysis, cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment and finds that the conduct of analysis is affected by where analysts are placed in agencies. In particular, independence of analysts has a trade-off.

Eisenhower Building

Public Comment on OMB's Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order Titled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs"

February 13, 2017

By Susan E. Dudley, Brian F. Mannix, Sofie E. Miller, & Daniel R. Pérez
In this comment on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA) interim guidance on Executive Order 13771, GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars acknowledge that the Order represents a significant departure from past practice, however, they emphasize that the additional budgeting constraints it imposes need not supplant longstanding requirements to examine regulatory benefits as well as costs and to achieve regulatory objectives as cost-effectively as possible. The comment reinforces OIRA’s draft questions and answers, and offers some suggestions for clarification and improvement.

Trump

Implementing a Two-for-One Regulatory Requirement in the U.S.

December 06, 2016

By Marcus Peacock
President-elect Trump endorsed “a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations need to be eliminated” or what could be called a “two-for-one” requirement. This working paper addresses how such a process might work including its scope; what to measure; additional workload; and whether it outlasts a Trump administration.

Evidence

Public Comment to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking

November 08, 2016

By Marcus Peacock, Sofie E. Miller and Daniel R. Pérez
Scholars at the GW Regulatory Studies Center show how the U.S. could make regulations more evidence-based in a comment to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. Evidence-based regulations plan for, collect, and use evidence to predict, evaluate and improve societal outcomes throughout the rule’s life. This comment lays out a process for producing such rules and provides over a dozen specific recommendations on how the U.S. could better adopt and implement such a system.

Stack of money

How Declining Budgets at U.S. Regulatory Agencies Could Improve Performance

September 19, 2016

By Marcus Peacock
Although spending on U.S. regulatory programs has doubled in the last 20 years, that trend is unlikely to last. How these programs manage budget cuts will determine whether downsizing harms or helps regulatory performance. Leaders of regulatory agencies must avoid satisfying tighter budgets with temporary “mindless austerity” measures that anger workers. Instead managers should use scarcity to find, with workers, “frugal innovations” that can significantly and permanently improve program value. In this working paper, Peacock examines how agencies can get budget cuts to help rather than harm.

Dept. of Treasury

Improving the Accountability of Federal Regulatory Agencies, Part III: What Reforms Work Best

September 12, 2016

By Marcus Peacock
What can regulatory reformers learn from past government-wide reform efforts? Two previous Regulatory Insights describe eight major U.S. government initiatives that failed to improve accountability. This Insight identifies a lack of leadership and unfaithful execution by agency personnel as barriers to success. These problems could be addressed by: (1) codification of reform; (2) adopting modest reform proposals (incrementalism); (3) creating third parties to implement/enforce reform; and (4) establishing competition between regulatory programs such as through a regulatory budget.

EPA

Evaluation at EPA: Determinants of the Environmental Protection Agency's Capacity to Supply Program Evaluation

August 31, 2016

By Nick Hart
Since EPA’s inception, it has emphasized the use of prospective policy analysis tools to inform environmental decisions, including cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. However, EPA and others rarely evaluate these same environmental policies after implementation, to inform future policy development or to modify existing policies. Nicholas Hart, PhD recently completed his dissertation in GW’s Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration focusing on the processes and determinants that affect evaluation supply at EPA. Hart identifies ten key factors that constituted both barriers to and facilitators of evaluation. His policy brief summarizes these factors and his conclusions.

JBCA

How Effective Are Federally Mandated Information Disclosures?

August 30, 2016

by Arthur G. Fraas and Randall Lutter in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Government mandates to disclose information are a standard response to problems of asymmetric information. Fraas and Lutter examine recent major U.S. regulations issued between 2008 and 2013 to identify disclosure mandates and look for quantitative assessments of their effectiveness in improving comprehension. The authors find that although mandated disclosures underpin a number of major federal regulatory initiatives, agencies infrequently issue such mandates based on scientifically valid, controlled studies of the improvements in comprehension from such disclosure and recommend reforms to improve federally mandated information disclosure.

U.S. Capitol

Structure vs. Process: Examining the Interaction between Bureaucratic Organization and Analytical Requirements

July 25, 2016

By Stuart Shapiro
Attempts by politicians to control bureaucratic decisions include both structural organization and procedural rules. But how do these interact? This article examines the relationship between bureaucratic structure and the requirement that agencies conduct an analysis of their decisions prior to their issuance in the context of two types of analysis: cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment. The research finds that conduct of analysis is affected by where analysts are placed in agencies. In particular independence of analysts has a tradeoff. Despite this, analysts expressed a clear preference for independence.

U.S. Capitol

Improving the Accountability of Federal Regulatory Agencies, Part I: A Review of Government-Wide Efforts

June 22, 2016

By Marcus Peacock
Given the broad interest in improving regulatory accountability, especially by learning from the actual results achieved by previous regulations, it is ironic that little has been done to learn from the results of past regulatory reform efforts. Before mandating further requirements, Congress and the President should examine past government-wide accountability initiatives to assess their outcomes. This first Regulatory Policy Insight in a series of three on improving regulatory accountability identifies eight major past initiatives. Future Insights will examine the relative success of these eight reforms and what lessons they offer.

NYU Law

The Regulatory Budget Debate

June 20, 2016

By Richard J. Pierce, Jr.
For 35 years OIRA has used benefit-cost-analysis to review major rules issued by executive branch agencies. Generally, OIRA reviews major proposed agency rules to determine whether their expected benefits to society exceed their expected costs to society. If the estimated costs of a proposed rule exceed its estimated benefits, OIRA urges the agency to change the rule in ways that will increase its benefits and reduce its costs. For almost as long as OIRA has been applying BCA, some of the smartest and most productive progressive scholars have criticized the role of OIRA generally and OIRA’s use of BCA in particular. It is time for those scholars to stop wasting their energy tilting at windmills and put their extraordinary talents to use in more promising endeavors.

Capitol

The Federal Government on Autopilot: Delegation of Regulatory Authority to an Unaccountable Bureaucracy

May 24, 2016

By Sofie E. Miller
In testimony before the House Task Force on Executive Overreach, Senior Policy Analyst Sofie E. Miller explains that retrospective review is a key component of an effective regulatory process because it allows agencies to review whether existing rules are accomplishing their intended goals and to determine what effect they have on the regulated public. Miller argues that writing rules at the outset to facilitate this measurement can improve outcomes and enable policymakers to learn from what has worked and what hasn’t.