Affiliations
International
Regulatory Impact on Corn Farming: Transatlantic Agriculture & Regulation Working Paper Series: No. 5
By Daniel R. Pérez, Aryamala Prasad, & Zhoudan Xie
The final chapter of the five part series with the USDA and the GW Regulatory Studies Center examines the impact of environmental and food safety regulations on corn production in the U.S. and EU. Using France and Spain as case studies to illustrate the differences that result from EU member states’ translation and implementation of agricultural regulations at the country level, the chapter identifies and discusses regulations affecting corn production and estimates the economic impact of each regulation at the farm level. The use of a typical farm approach demonstrates relative differences in outcomes for farms among different jurisdictions.
Public Comment on The Department of Homeland Security’s Proposed International Entrepreneur Rule
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.
US-EU Regulatory Cooperation: Lessons and Opportunities
By D. Pérez, S. Dudley, N. Eisner, R. Lutter, D. Zorn and N. Nord
The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center prepared this report as part of a grant from the European Union to analyze regulatory cooperation between the EU and U.S. The report includes three case studies examining how cooperation has worked in practice between U.S. regulatory agencies and their EU counterparts and an analysis of U.S. regulations likely to have significant effects on international trade and investment. These analyses identify opportunities to reduce incompatible approaches while indicating areas where differences could persist due to issues of national sovereignty and structural differences between countries.
Should Federal Regulatory Agencies Report Benefits to Americans from Mandated Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
By Art Fraas, Randall Lutter, Susan E. Dudley, Ted Gayer, John Graham, Jason F. Shogren, W. Kip Viscusi
In a letter to the National Academy of Sciences on its project, "Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon," a group of prominent regulatory economists argues that federal regulatory analysis should compare domestic regulatory benefits to domestic costs. The current government approach of reporting only the global benefits of reducing carbon emissions neglects that duty. The letter recommends that the panel adopt a dual approach that refocuses regulatory impact analysis of climate regulations on domestic benefits, while providing for separate reporting of estimated global benefits.
Identifying Regulations Affecting International Trade and Investment: Better Classification Could Improve Regulatory Cooperation
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.
The Role of Transparency in Regulatory Governance: Comparing US and EU Regulatory Systems
By Susan E. Dudley & Kai Wegrich
This review of regulatory procedures in the EU and US suggests that each values good regulatory practices, such as transparency, public consultation, and regulatory impact analysis, but emphasizes them to different degrees at different stages in the regulatory process. Particularly for regulations that address human health risks, both jurisdictions should be more transparent regarding the uncertainties surrounding estimates of regulatory outcomes and the effect of key assumptions on those estimates. A transparent process for evaluating regulatory effects ex post could also improve regulatory analysis and outcomes.
Achieving Regulatory Policy Objectives: An Overview and Comparison of U.S. and EU Procedures
By Susan E. Dudley & Kai Wegrich
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.
Australia's Regulatory 'Bonfire'
By Susan E. Dudley & Jeff Bennett
The World Economic Forum ranks Australia 128th in the world in terms of the burden of government regulation, noting "the business community cites labor regulations and bureaucratic red tape as being, respectively, the first and second most problematic factor for doing business in their country." Concerns over regulatory burden have resonated with the Australian coalition government elected last September, which committed to "building a stronger, more productive and diverse economy with lower taxes, more efficient government and more competitive businesses…by reducing the regulatory burden that is strangling Australia’s economic prosperity and development.” This article outlines the Australian government's plans for regulatory reform, and the effects of those reforms on competitiveness and regulatory burden.
Public Interest Comment on The Interagency Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12866
By Susan E. Dudley and Brian Mannix
This comment endorses the administration’s effort to arrive at a uniform SCC, to help ensure internal consistency across a portfolio of policies directed at reducing carbon emissions. However, it raises concerns that the task of estimating the SCC was undertaken with an apparent bias that needs to be corrected before it can be taken as objective.
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
Regulatory Studies Center
Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
805 21st St. NW
Washington, DC 20052
[email protected]
