Daniel R. Pérez

Senior Policy Analyst

Photo of Daniel Pérez

 

Daniel is a senior policy analyst at the GW Regulatory Studies Center. His professional experience includes work as a private sector energy analyst, where he studied the outcomes and regulatory environment of state-owned oil companies. Daniel’s research interests include privacy, effects of regulation on international trade and investment, the international energy market, and national security. Daniel is also a PhD. student at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration. 

Daniel R Pérez CV

 

 

 

Content by Daniel Pérez:

 

The Effects of GDPR on the Digital Economy: Evidence from the Literature

September 14, 2020 | By: Aryamala Prasad & Daniel R. Pérez

In the growing digitalized world, the European Union implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to establish a comprehensive data protection framework across member states. Given the constitutional roots of GDPR, the EU's regulatory approach is different than other data protection regimes. The new regulation has strengthened individual rights to data protection, but it also introduced several obligations for businesses that collect and process personal data. We review the existing literature on privacy, particularly GDPR, from a policy perspective. The evidence outlines data regulation's effects on competition, innovation, marketing activities, and cross-border data flows. The discussion highlights the tradeoffs between increased regulation of data protection and its effects on the market.


Dynamic Benefit-Cost Analysis for Uncertain Futures

September 17, 2019 | By: Susan E. Dudley, Daniel R. Pérez, Brian F. Mannix, & Christopher Carrigan

Policymakers face demands to act today to protect against a wide range of future risks, and to do so without impeding economic growth. Yet traditional analytical tools may not be adequate to frame the relevant uncertainties and tradeoffs. Challenges such as climate change, nuclear war, and widespread natural disasters don't lend themselves to decision rules designed for discrete policy questions and marginal analyses. We refer to such issues as "uncertain futures."


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.


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.


Identifying Regulations Affecting International Trade and Investment: Better Classification Could Improve Regulatory Cooperation

November 10, 2015 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

Early notice of upcoming regulations that are likely to affect international trade and investment helps U.S. citizens and companies as well as our trading partners. The U.S. has tasked its regulatory agencies with flagging such rules in the semiannual Unified Agenda before they are issued. We compared the number of rules that agencies flagged as likely to have an international impact from 2008 through 2014 with the number of rules we identified, based on our criteria, that were likely to have such an impact. Agencies are currently identifying less than 30% of these rules.


 

Biometrics and Immigration

October 14, 2020 | By: Mark Febrizio & Daniel R. Pérez

This public interest comment begins by summarizing DHS's proposed rule "Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services," and discussing the statutory authority delegated to DHS. It then evaluates the department’s regulatory impact analysis, emphasizing the rule’s failure to comply with established requirements for regulatory analysis. Then, our comment argues that the rule’s 30-day comment period should be reopened to allow the public to have a meaningful opportunity to comment. We conclude by summarizing the key recommendations included in the 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.


Dept. of Education's Student Assistance & Loan Programs

September 07, 2018 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

This comment argues that the Dept. of Education's proposal to rescind its 2016 change to the definition of misrepresentation and to change its 2016 approach making a priori assumptions about the quality of non-profit and for-profit schools better complies with existing regulatory requirements. The Department should retain borrowers’ ability to file affirmative claims, collect additional data to inform future rulemaking, and more thoroughly consider the net impact of its proposed rules on processing borrower claims on a case-by-case basis.


DHS's Proposed Rule: Removal of International Entrepreneur Parole Program

June 29, 2018 | By: Daniel R. Pérez & Lisa Zimmer

The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to eliminate its international entrepreneur program, which was created in 2017, despite the agency's previous findings that the program will increase economic growth, job creation, and U.S. based innovation. The proposal also runs contrary to the administration's declared policy of shifting towards a more merit-based immigration system, decreasing regulatory costs, and demonstrated early success from the program.


Examining How Small Businesses Confront and Shape Regulations

March 29, 2017 | By: Sofie E. Miller & Daniel R. Pérez

On March 29th, the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship met to consider legislative reforms that would affect how small businesses confront and shape regulations. This prepared statement for the record focuses on S. 584: Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. The analysis suggests that the Committee should: be careful to avoid the problem of double-counting indirect costs, use an evidence-based regulation framework to strengthen retrospective review, and safeguard against unintentionally reducing the efficacy of the existing Small Business Advocacy Review process.


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.


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.


NHTSA’s Federal Automated Vehicles Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution In Roadway Safety

November 16, 2016 | By: Sofie E. Miller, Howard Beales & Daniel R. Pérez

This comment on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) recent Federal Automated Vehicles Policy considers the impact of regulating driverless car technology on innovation and social welfare. NHTSA is correct to be cautious of the effects that a federal policy could have on innovation, particularly because the safety gains from highly automated vehicles (HAV) could be significant. As a result, the agency should avoid any type of premarket approval authority for HAV technology, which could potentially delay the adoption of life-saving innovations and result in thousands of traffic fatalities.


Public Comment to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking

November 08, 2016 | By: Marcus Peacock, Sofie E. Miller & 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.


DHS’s Proposed International Entrepreneur Rule

October 18, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rule would expand the use of its discretionary authority to parole individuals into the United States for reasons of “significant public benefit” to include foreign entrepreneurs looking to start a business in the U.S. DHS recognizes that “the full potential of foreign entrepreneurs to benefit the U.S. economy is presently limited since many…do not qualify under existing nonimmigrant and immigrant classifications.” The rule proposes several criteria for approving applicants on a case-by-case basis. This comment proposes several changes that DHS could make to its proposed rule to maximize its potential benefits.


ED’s Proposed Rule on Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Student Loans Programs and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program

August 02, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The total outstanding balance of student loans is currently estimated to be $1.35 trillion, and default rates among borrowers have reached their highest levels in 20 years. The rule proposed by The Department of Education (ED) would make several amendments to regulations governing its Federal Direct Loan Program, including: 1) an expansion of the conditions wherein ED forgives borrowers’ loan balances, 2) additional provisions that broaden its ability to recover losses from institutions, and 3) expanded financial requirements for postsecondary schools. ED estimates this rule could have annual federal budget impacts of up to$4.23 billion.


FDA’s Public Availability of: Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact Concerning Investigational Use of Oxitec OX513A Mosquitoes

May 13, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

Genetically-modified mosquitoes hold great promise for addressing mosquito-borne diseases that threaten South Florida. Yet, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District has been waiting since 2011 for approval from FDA to allow the biotechnology company Oxitec to conduct field trials for this promising technology. This public interest comment points out that the trial poses no appreciable risk to human or animal health or the environment. The unusually lengthy timeframe for approval has unnecessarily limited our ability to combat the spread of life-threatening diseases, like Zika and Dengue.


Public Interest Comment to the National Economic Council on The President's Executive Order 13725: Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy

May 12, 2016 | By: Sofie E. Miller, Daniel R. Pérez, Susan E. Dudley & Brian F. Mannix

This public comment suggests several areas of regulatory policy where federal regulations have hindered, rather than helped, competition, and recommends that agencies take this opportunity to reduce these regulatory barriers to competition.


 

2020 Spring Agenda: More Regulation than Deregulation for Big Rules

July 1, 2020 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the final Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions before the upcoming presidential election this November. The entries listed in the Agenda illustrate that multiple agencies plan to issue more regulatory actions than deregulatory actions in the coming months with substantive rulemakings involving immigration, energy efficiency standards, the regulation of tobacco, and changes to various transfer programs. For those rules expected to have the largest effect on society, agencies are on track to issue twice as many regulatory actions as deregulatory actions.


Using Public Comments to Identify Regulations for Retrospective Review

April 22, 2020 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

A new report by the GW Regulatory Studies Center finds that analysis of public comments can help agencies pick which regulations to evaluate. In addition to feedback about individual regulations that commenters point out as candidates for review, the underlying characteristics of those regulations can be used by agencies to prioritize additional regulations for evaluation.


OIRA’s Regulatory Reform Report for Fiscal Year 2019

December 18, 2019 | By: Mark Febrizio & Daniel R. Pérez

The Regulatory Reform Results for Fiscal Year 2019 are out, and OIRA is touting that regulatory agencies produced $13.5 billion in present value cost savings. Beyond the glossy highlights, however, are a few important “firsts” in implementation, such as total agency cost savings falling short of the government-wide targets.


Upcoming CRA Deadline has Implications for Regulatory Oversight by Congress

December 11, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to disapprove regulations issued by agencies and contains a lookback provision that places almost six months of rulemaking in jeopardy of elimination by the next Congress. The window for this period of review opens in 2020, but agencies will have to weigh the tradeoffs of rushing to publish their rules before the window. According to the 2020 House calendar, any rules issued after May 19, 2020 may be subject to review by the 117th Congress. However, historical data suggest the lookback period is more likely to begin sometime in July or early August of 2020.


Unified Agenda Released without FY 2019 Regulatory Reform Report

November 20, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

This morning, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released its annual Regulatory Plan and semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Notably absent is the Regulatory Reform Status Report, which tracks executive agency performance in complying with the deregulatory requirements of Executive Order (EO) 13771. With regards to actions listed as active in the Agenda, agencies plan to issue an average of approximately 2.5 significant deregulatory actions for every 1 regulatory action. However, our analysis of economically significant actions suggests a potential shift in agency rulemaking.


ED Settles on Less Ambitious Overhaul of Borrower Defense

October 16, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The Department of Education recently published its long-awaited, final rule detailing how the agency will process borrower defense and other loan discharges related to its Federal Direct Loan Program. The final rule applies to all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2020 and departs from the agency’s approach to adjudicating claims under the Obama administration.


Privacy Research: The Need for Evidence in the Design of U.S. Privacy Policy

July 03, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

This regulatory policy insight details the importance of using evidence to inform the development of U.S. privacy policy and identifies the kinds of evidence that would be particularly useful for policymakers to consider.


2019 Spring Unified Agenda

May 22, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The Spring 2019 Unified Agenda includes a total of 3,791 actions, 295 of which are classified as regulatory, 721 as deregulatory, with the remainder exempt or classified as “other.” Of the total number of actions, 177 are economically significant. The agencies with the most deregulatory actions planned are the Department of Transportation (DOT) with 129 actions and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with 65; these same two agencies have had the most deregulatory actions planned since the Fall 2017 Agenda.


Policy Analysis for Uncertain Futures

March 13, 2019 | By: Susan E. Dudley & Daniel R. Pérez

Policymakers face demands to act today to protect against a wide range of future risks, and to do so without impeding economic growth. Yet traditional analytical tools may not be adequate to frame the relevant uncertainties and tradeoffs. Challenges such as climate change, nuclear war, and widespread natural disasters don’t lend themselves to decision rules designed for discrete policy questions and marginal analyses. We refer to such issues as “uncertain futures.”

More flexible and dynamic decision-analysis approaches that anticipate the need to learn from experience (and that encourage learning) are essential. Developing a body of research that cuts across disciplines to introduce better tools for anticipating and examining uncertain future risks can lead to policies that lower the probabilities and mitigate the consequences of these uncertain futures while encouraging economic growth and increasing resilience. To this end, the GW Regulatory Studies Center commissioned four papers from leading experts in different fields.


The Government Shutdown's Effect on Regulatory Output

February 6, 2019 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

This commentary presents data illustrating a substantial reduction in regulatory activity during the government shutdown. Interestingly, despite the end of the shutdown on January 25, the regulatory pace has not yet returned to prior levels. This stall in regulatory output has substantial implications for President Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Since regulations take months to years to move through the notice-and-comment process, the administration may be running short on time to get through the items on the president’s agenda.


2018 Fall Unified Agenda

October 17, 2018 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

In her introduction to the Fall 2018 Regulatory Plan, OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao states that the administration’s regulatory reform efforts will continue to prioritize reforms that target economic growth and foster technological innovation and consumer choice. The Fall 2018 Unified Agenda includes a total of 3,534 regulatory actions—174 of which are economically significant. Of these, 257 are classified as regulatory, 671 as deregulatory, with the remainder exempt or classified as “other.” Compared to the Spring 2018 Agenda, the total number of actions increased from 3,352 to 3,534. The number of active rulemakings in this Agenda increased slightly (2,399 compared to 2,226 last spring). Of those, the number of economically significant actions increased from 88 in the Spring 2018 Agenda to 118 in the Fall 2018 Agenda. Interestingly, of the 118 economically significant actions listed, 26 are deregulatory, 41 are regulatory, 15 are exempt, and the rest are classified as “other.”


Fiscal Year 2018 Report on Regulatory Reform under Trump

October 17, 2018 | Daniel R. Pérez

Pérez provides an overview of the Trump administration's release of the 2018 Fall Agenda and status update on the implementation of Executive Order 13771.


E.O. 12866 - A View from the House

October 12, 2018 | By: Daniel Flores

Daniel Flores is a Majority Staff member of the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, and in this commentary he explains why Congress has long been considering ways to assure legislative activity is animated and guided by the 'Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles' within Executive Order 12866.


Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Principles Survive and Thrive for 25 Years

September 26, 2018 | By: Mark Febrizio, Daniel R. Pérez, & Zhoudan Xie

This week marks the 25th anniversary of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This document, signed by President Clinton in 1993, built on orders from previous administrations to cement the regulatory principles and centralized review that continue to guide the rulemaking process today. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrators who led this review under presidents Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump gathered Monday at the George Washington University along with government experts and scholars to discuss why these principles and processes have withstood the test of time across changes in administrations and political parties.


A Taxonomy of Regulatory Forms

May 30, 2018 | By: Zhoudan Xie & Daniel R. Pérez

This Regulatory Insight addresses the information gap in how regulations are measured when determining their effect on economic growth and other macroeconomic measures by developing a taxonomy of regulatory forms. In partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, this framework allows regulations to be classified by the form they employ to achieve the stated regulatory outcomes. We expect this taxonomy to also be applicable to industries outside of agriculture, and to be utilized by researchers and analysts in a wide range of fields as a framework for informing research on the relative effectiveness of different regulatory forms to address market and social problems.


Spring Unified Agenda Sustains Deregulatory Focus

May 10, 2018 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The Spring 2018 Unified Agenda includes a total of 3,352 regulatory actions, 234 of which are classified as regulatory, 611 as deregulatory, with the remainder exempt or classified as “other.” Of the total number of actions, 139 are economically significant. The Agenda distinguishes between active regulations (those with milestones within the next 12 months), long-term actions, and completed actions. Of the 2,226 actions listed as active approximately 24% are published for the first time in this Spring Agenda. Altogether, for active actions in the Agenda, executive agencies under the Trump administration plan to take an average of approximately 4 deregulatory actions for every 1 regulatory action.


President Trump's State of the Union claim on Regulation: The 2017 Data are In

February 01, 2018 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

In his State of the Union speech last night, President Trump claimed “we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in history.” Assuming he is referring to previous presidents’ first years in office, comparisons of numbers of regulations repealed support his claim. Still, the historic data reveal some valuable nuance that informs evaluation of the administration’s efforts to reduce the burden of regulation. The data for 2017 are in and our RegStats page contains updated graphs and figures presenting several interesting insights into the administration’s regulatory agenda.


Federal Agency Rulemaking across Administrations

August 28, 2017 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

We're expanding our Reg Stats to include data on the regulatory output of individual federal agencies during different presidents’ tenures in office. Government agencies issue thousands of regulations each year, and it is no small task to identify which among them likely have the most substantial impacts on society. Understanding the volume of economically significant rules issued by regulatory agencies is useful in analyzing regulatory priorities of different administrations and observing significant shifts in regulatory approaches over time.


The Window on Low-Hanging Fruit in Regulatory Reform is Closing

May 10, 2017 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The 60 day window for Congress to use the CRA to repeal rules issued during the Obama midnight period is coming to a close. So far, the most visible results of President Trump’s deregulatory agenda have been signing these legislative actions but today's Senate vote on the methane rule resulted in the CRA's first failure under President Trump. In this commentary, Pérez explains how future regulatory reform efforts will require considerably less expeditious legislative and executive branch action.


More Historic “Firsts” for Regulatory Disapprovals under the Congressional Review Act

 

April 04, 2017 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

Congress continues to make history by exercising its powers under the CRA to eliminate rules issued at the end of the Obama administration. To date, 13 resolutions of disapproval have passed both chambers of Congress; two additional bills have passed the House. President Trump has signed eight of these into law with three additional resolutions awaiting his signature. Finally, the Senate passed two more resolutions on March 30th which should be sent to the president soon. Prior to 2017, Congress had only successfully struck down a single rule using the CRA.


President Trump Signs First Regulatory Disapproval in 16 Years

February 15, 2017 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

The 115th Congress has wasted no time in exercising its powers under the Congressional Review Act to eliminate regulations issued by federal agencies during the Obama administration. Currently, eight joint resolutions of disapproval have passed the House—two of which were delivered to the president for his signature on February 6. President Trump signed one of these into law on February 14. This marks the first time in 16 years since Congress has successfully used the CRA to eliminate a regulation.


A Useful Measure of Regulatory Output

January 11, 2017 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The Office of Management and Budget recently published its Exit Memo highlighting several aspects of the agency’s work under President Obama. The memo includes quantitative metrics of the administration’s regulatory output to draw comparisons with regulations issued by agencies under Presidents Clinton and Bush. This commentary describes why measuring regulatory output by comparing economically significant rules is a metric that better characterizes an administration's regulatory priorities.


The Midnight Uptick: Hasty Turnaround for Costly Student Loan Rule

November 02, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The Department of Education (ED) published a final rule concerning its student loan program on November 1, 2016. This rule attracted a great deal of input during its notice and comment period; ED notes that it received comments from over 50,000 parties. The Department completed its review with remarkable speed considering the amount of input received. The final rule could cost taxpayers up to $3.5 billion per year. Notably, the Department published its final rule without making any substantive changes as a result of the public input it received.


The Renewable Fuel Standard’s Contribution to National Security is Misconstrued by its Advocates

September 29, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

Advocates of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) often cite its contribution to national security in their list of reasons for either maintaining or expanding the program. Providing security is a first-order priority of government, but the contribution of the RFS to national security is widely misrepresented. Understanding this component of the program is necessary in order to conduct a fair assessment of whether its benefits outweigh its costs.


Reaching Across Borders: U.S. – EU Regulatory Cooperation in Practice

September 20, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The U.S. and EU continue to improve outcomes for their citizens through successful regulatory cooperation despite the continued political rhetoric against international trade. On Thursday, September 15, 2016, the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center co-hosted a conference with the EU Delegation to the United States on “U.S.-EU International Regulatory Cooperation in Practice.” The conference brought together senior officials from the European Commission and U.S. government, experts and practitioners in the areas of trade and regulatory cooperation, industry stakeholders, and consumer interest groups.


Reforms to Student Loans Create More Problems Than They Fix

August 03, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The Department of Education’s proposed new regulation regarding student loans is getting a lot of attention. It received almost 7,000 public comments on proposed changes to how it administers its Federal Direct Loan Program and its requirements for post-secondary schools whose students pay for tuition using federally funded student loans. Unfortunately, ED has not done its homework. Our comment on the proposed rule finds that is likely to create more problems than it solves. This rule could end up hurting the poor and costing taxpayers up to $4.23 billion per year.


Protectionist Rhetoric Continues as U.S. and EU Wrap-Up 13th Round of Trade Talks

May 04, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

The success of populist presidential candidates like Donald Trump is fueled, in part, by a surge in opposition to free trade on both ends of the American political spectrum. Meanwhile, the U.S. and EU continue their negotiation of TTIP aimed at increasing economic growth. A recently published report by the GW Regulatory Studies Center, as part of a two-year grant from the EU to conduct policy research and engage public debate, examines regulatory challenges and opportunities to transatlantic trade.


The Role of FDA Regulation in the Fight Against the Zika Virus

February 17, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

Given the escalating concern over the spread of the Zika virus—transmitted mainly by mosquitoes—it is interesting to note that the FDA has sat on a promising remedy for over 4 years. The agency has still not released for public comment its assessment of an application it received back in November of 2011 from the biotech company for a field trial to employ a genetically modified (GM) mosquito with the potential to dramatically reduce the population of these disease-carrying insects.


President Obama’s Regulatory Output: Looking Back at 2015 and Ahead to 2016

January 12, 2016 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

In 2015, President Obama’s executive agencies issued 62 economically significant rules—those defined in Executive Order 12866 as likely to have “an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,” making last year the second most active regulatory year of his presidency. Many of these rules focused on his regulatory priorities. This commentary looks back at the number of regulations published in 2015 and ahead to 2016, evaluating the President’s activity in the context of regulatory output of previous administrations.


Insights on South Korea’s Public-Private Partnership for Regulatory Reform

December 21, 2015 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

Representatives from Korea’s Public-Private Joint Regulation Advancement Initiative (PPJRAI) recently concluded their visit to the United States, where they met with regulatory experts from both the public and private sectors in Washington, D.C. This public-private initiative constitutes an important part of Korea’s efforts to build on its successful history of regulatory reform and improve the market-oriented features of its regulatory system. The GW Regulatory Studies Center met with representatives from PPJRAI to discuss regulatory reform, including its mandate to improve conditions for small and medium enterprises (SME) operating in the Korean economy.


Midnight Rules: A Comparison of Regulatory Output Across Administrations

December 01, 2015 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

 

As Presidential administrations wind down during their “lame duck” period, their final three months between Election Day and Inauguration Day is usually accompanied by a flurry of last-minute regulatory activity known as the Midnight period. This last-minute increase has direct implications for the quality of review that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is able to provide. To get a better sense of what the next Midnight period might mean for the quality of regulatory oversight, we compare President Obama’s current level of regulatory output relative to his predecessors’—Presidents Clinton and Bush.


Early Notice from U.S. Agencies Could Help Avoid Creating Barriers to Trade

November 11, 2015 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

Countries engaged in international trade and investment have been largely successful at reducing many of the traditional barriers to the flow of goods, such as tariffs. As a result, trade deals are increasingly prioritizing the elimination of unnecessary regulatory differences between trade partners which act as a lingering barrier to trade, creating inefficiencies that unnecessarily raise costs for businesses and consumers. This commentary addresses an important mechanism in successful international regulatory cooperation involving efforts by trade partners to provide advanced notice of upcoming regulations that are likely to affect international trade and investment.


Consistent Inconsistencies: Misclassification of Rules Could Hamper International Regulatory Cooperation

August 26, 2015 | By: Daniel R. Pérez

International regulatory cooperation is a central component of current U.S. efforts to negotiate international trade agreements. As traditional barriers to trade decline, understanding regulatory impacts on trade and investment is of particular importance for economic growth, given that these agreements include trade partners that accounted for almost $3 trillion in goods and services traded in 2013. Executive Order 13609 tasked executive regulatory agencies with identifying regulations that were likely to have a significant impact on international trade and investment. We examined the performance of agencies in identifying such regulations and our research suggests there is significant room for improvement.


 

Putting Food on the Table: Agriculture and Regulation

Since 2015, The GW Regulatory Studies Center has worked with the United States Department of Agriculture in a series of cooperative agreements to better understand agricultural regulations.


Accounting for regulatory reform under Executive Order 13771

Executive Order (EO) 13771, known as the “regulatory two-for-one” EO, imposed new constraints on executive branch regulatory agencies, directing them to: (1) to cut two existing rules for each new rule issued and (2) offset any costs imposed by new rules while operating under a regulatory cost cap. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is responsible for implementing this EO and reporting on its progress. OMB has issued Regulatory Reform Reports for fiscal year (FY) 2017 and FY 2018. The fiscal year for 2019 ended recently on September 30, 2019. While we await the latest report, this article explains OMB’s current accounting methodology, gleaned from OMB’s guidance and other public documents, and highlights challenges of reporting agency performance in implementing EO 13771. It also contains our recommendations to improve the accuracy and accountability of both OMB’s annual reporting and individual agency actions.

Our article proceeds as follows. Part I details the OIRA guidance to agencies on what “counts” as an EO 13771 regulatory or deregulatory action. Part II describes OIRA’s accounting methodology for estimating agency cost savings. Part III elaborates on analytical concerns that flow from the administration’s current approach for estimating “counts” and “cost savings” and offers several recommendations for improving the content of agency actions and OIRA’s annual reporting on EO 13771.


US-EU Regulatory Cooperation: Lessons and Opportunities

The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center prepared this report as part of a grant from the European Union to analyze opportunities to improve regulatory cooperation between the EU and U.S. The first chapter presents an overview of the research. The case studies in chapters three through five examine how regulatory cooperation has worked in practice between three U.S. regulatory agencies and their EU counterparts. The fifth chapter analyzes regulatory activity in the U.S. likely to have significant effects on international trade and investment. These analyses identify areas of opportunity that can help reduce incompatible approaches and unnecessary costs while indicating areas where regulatory divergences could persist due to jurisdictional judgements of national sovereignty and structural differences between countries.