Drawing Inspiration from James Q. Wilson’s “Bureaucracy”
Few have had as much influence on my development as a researcher as Professor James Q. Wilson.
Publications
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.
What We Publish
Journal Articles & Working Papers
Long-form publications intended for academic audiences that take a deep dive into a particular aspect of regulatory policy.
Public Comments & Testimonies
Scholarly analysis of the potential effects of particular rulemakings from federal agencies, and advice to Congress on how to improve the rulemaking process.
Commentaries & Insights
Short-form publications intended for all audiences which provide easy to access analysis of regulatory policy.
Books & Reports
Formal publications, often completed with other leading organizations and individuals, providing a thorough understanding of regulations and the rulemaking process.
Newsletters
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.
Latest Publications
Regulatory Subsidies: A Primer
Subsidies are a commonplace feature of government programs, and can be found in regulatory programs as well as in budget expenditures and in the tax code. An accurate accounting of regulatory subsidies, accessible to the general public, could improve government regulation by helping to ensure that such subsidies are used only when, and to the degree that, they serve a sound public purpose.
Review of In the Web of Politics: Three Decades of the U.S. Federal Executive
Aberbach and Rockman draw on more than two decades of research to support their argument that the quality, morale, and responsiveness of presidential appointees and senior civil servants have not declined in the manner suggested by some critics of the bureaucracy.
(Mis)Applications of Behavioral Economics to Regulation
In this paper, Smith evaluates the recent promotion of libertarian paternalism as a viable means of coordinating market activities. In doing so, Smith challenges the notion that “anti-antipaternalism” logically follows from the findings in behavioral economics.
Public Commenting on Federal Agency Regulations
This report, commissioned by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), investigates agency practices in soliciting, circulating, and responding to public comments during the federal rulemaking process.
Since the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was enacted in 1946, the technological landscape has changed dramatically, while the basic framework for notice and comment rulemaking has largely gone unchanged. Federal regulators, looking to embrace the benefits of e-Rulemaking, face considerable ambiguity about how established legal requirements apply to the web.
Regulatory Consultation in the United States
This paper provides an overview of the U.S. regulatory process to facilitate discussion of stakeholder consultation at the joint Bertelsmann Stiftung and George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center workshop on December 1, 2010.
We examine the correlation between federal government activity and the performance of the D.C. area's National Football League team, the Washington Redskins. We find a significantly positive, non-spurious, and robust correlation between the Redskins' winning percentage and the amount of federal government bureaucratic activity as measured by the number of pages in the Federal Register.
eRulemaking Challenges in the United States
Over the past 15 years, various efforts have been undertaken by the U.S. government, think tanks, interest groups, and academia to advance eRulemaking. While some eRulemaking improvements have been made, substantial opportunities remain.