Affiliations
International
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.
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.
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
regulatorystudies@gwu.edu
