Over the past decades, considerable debate has emerged surrounding the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to analyze and make recommendations for environmental and safety regulations. Critics argue that CBA forces values on unquantifiable factors, that it does not adequately measure benefits across generations, and that it is not adaptable in situations of uncertainty. Proponents, on the other hand, believe that a well-done CBA provides useful, albeit imperfect, information to policymakers precisely because of the standard metrics that are applied across the analysis. Largely absent from the d
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Abstract This paper explores the role of microeconomic analysis in policy formulation by assessing how the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) that federal regulatory agencies prepare for important proposed rules may affect outcomes when regulations are challenged in court. Conventional wisdom among economists and senior regulatory officials in federal agencies suggests that high-quality economic analysis can help a regulation survive such challenges, particularly when the agency explains how the analysis affected decisions. However, highlighting the economic analysis may also increase the risk a regulation could be overturned by inviting court scrutiny of the RIA. Using a dataset of economically significant, prescriptive regulations proposed between 2008 and 2013, we put these conjectures to the test, studying the relationships between the quality of the RIA accompanying each rule, the agency's explanation of how the analysis influenced its rulemaking decisions, and whether the rule was overturned when challenged in court. The regression results suggest that higher-quality RIAs are associated with a lower likelihood that the associated rules are later invalidated by courts, provided that the agency explained how it used the RIA in its decisions. Similarly, when the agency described how the RIA was used, a poor-quality analysis appears to increase the likelihood that the regulation is overturned, perhaps because it invites a greater level of court scrutiny. In contrast, when the agency does not describe how the RIA was utilized, there is no correlation between the quality of analysis and the likelihood that the regulation will be invalidated.
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity ; the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 18, Heft 1, S. 33
Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thorough economic analysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branch regulations. Such reforms are intended to improve the quality of economic analysis agencies produce when they issue major regulations. We employ newly gathered data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likely effects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality of agencies' regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Our results suggest that greater use of advance notices of proposed rulemakings for major regulations, advance consultation with regulated entities, use of advisory committees, and expansion of OIRA's resources and role would improve the quality of RIAs. They also suggest pre-proposal public meetings with stakeholders are associated with lower quality analysis.
