IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v7y2016i03p523-559_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory Process, Regulatory Reform, and the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis 1

Author

Listed:
  • Ellig, Jerry
  • Fike, Rosemarie

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellig, Jerry & Fike, Rosemarie, 2016. "Regulatory Process, Regulatory Reform, and the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis 1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 523-559, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:7:y:2016:i:03:p:523-559_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588816000208/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Broughel, James & Bose, Feler & Baugus, Brian, 2022. "A 50-State Review of Regulatory Procedures," Working Papers 10277, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.
    3. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Improvements in SEC Economic Analysis since Business Roundtable: A Structured Assessment," Working Papers 07002, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    4. Jerry Ellig, 2021. "Coproduction of regulations under the administrative procedure act: How close is the US to a classical Liberal regulatory system?," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 373-391, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:7:y:2016:i:03:p:523-559_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.