The GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars regularly conduct applied research to understand regulatory policy and practice from a public interest perspective. Our content often takes the form of public interest comments, formal testimony, working papers, policy insights, and short commentaries analyzing the most pressing issues in regulatory policy. View the rest of our material by the different types of publications listed on this page or our research areas.
Long-form publications intended for academic audiences that take a deep dive into a particular aspect of regulatory policy.
Scholarly analysis of the potential effects of particular rulemakings from federal agencies, and advice to Congress on how to improve the rulemaking process.
Short-form publications intended for all audiences which provide easy to access analysis of regulatory policy.
Formal publications, often completed with other leading organizations and individuals, providing a thorough understanding of regulations and the rulemaking process.
The weekly Regulation Digest contains everything you need to know about regulatory policy today, and our monthly Center Update gives you all of the latest from our team.
For accessible charts and supporting data that you can use in your own publications or presentations, visit the Reg Stats page.
Statutory Delegation, Agency Authority, and the Asymmetry of Impact Analysis
This paper documents the diverse degrees of discretionary authority Congress grants US executive branch agencies. It then presents a case study that systematically compares the quality of impact analysis that informed legislative and regulatory decisions on positive train control, a technology mandated by statute in 2008.
OMB's Request for Comment on Marginal Excess Tax Burden & EO 13771
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has requested advice on incorporating a measure of “marginal excess tax burden” (METB) as a potential cost under the regulatory cost accounting system mandated by Executive Order (E.O.) 13771.
OMB's Request for Comment on Marginal Excess Tax Burden and EO 13771
Executive Order (EO) 13771 of January 30, 2017 imposed new regulatory procedures on executive branch agencies by directing them to (1) eliminate two existing rules for each new rule issued and (2) offset costs imposed by new rules through compliance with an incremental regulatory budget.
Scholars of regulation generally view the procedures that agencies must follow when promulgating rules as instruments by which political principals control bureaucratic agents. Much like political principals attempt to use procedural checks to constrain regulatory agencies’ actions, these same agencies employ various regulatory instruments to influence the decisions of private agents, especially firms.
GSA Moving to Deal with Mass and Fake Comments
On January 30, the General Services Administration (GSA) hosted a public meeting on mass and fake comments.
For the past several years, along with colleagues at GW, I have been conducting research on mass comment campaigns in agency rulemaking. By mass comment campaigns, we mean collections of identical and near-duplicate comments sponsored by organizations and submitted by group members and supporters
Epistemic Lessons from Economic Regulatory Reform
There are three related epistemic lessons from this major wave of regulatory reforms that relate to the role of knowledge in the policymaking process.
STB Petition to Consider Benefit-Cost Analysis
On July 8, 2019, the STB decided to delay consideration of a petition asking the board to adopt a procedural rule that would require benefit-cost analysis in certain board rulemakings. On November 4, 2019, the STB solicited further information from the public about specific methods that could be used for benefit-cost analysis of rules related to economic regulation of freight railroads. The STB is prudent to explore methods for improving its economic analysis of regulatory proposals—as several other independent agencies have done in recent years.
GSA's Mass and Fake Comments Meeting
Over the last few years, we've been, with a bunch of colleagues at George Washington University, working on a project on mass comment campaigns and agency rulemaking. And I want to spend a few minutes sharing what we've been up to, what we've found. And what we think some of the broader implications of the research are, but for the larger interests we're discussing today.
FDIC's Framework for Analyzing the Effects of Regulatory Actions
The FDIC is considering a more structured approach to economic analysis that informs regulatory decisions. The RFI seeks comment on an approach that is based on Circular A-4, the Office of Management and Budget’s peer-reviewed guidance for conducting regulatory impact analysis (RIA) under Executive Order 12,866, as well as economic analysis guidance issued by other financial regulators.
