IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v37y2017i03p233-260_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review

Author

Listed:
  • Gailmard, Sean
  • Patty, John W.

Abstract

We develop a model of “notice and comment” rulemaking, focussing on strategic issues facing agencies and interest groups in light of judicial review in this process. Specifically, we analyse the incentives for agencies and groups to produce and reveal information during rulemaking. We show that judicial review can produce informed policymaking, but that participatory rulemaking can bias agency policymaking in favour of groups with access to the rule-making process. In addition, the model allows an analysis of doctrines of judicial review of agency policymaking. The model reveals that “politicised” judicial review can be beneficial because of its effects on agency incentives for information acquisition in policymaking. Accordingly, socially optimal judicial review may be “legally irrational” and, contrary to standard doctrines of judicial review in the United States, judicial deference to rules with thin records can be optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Gailmard, Sean & Patty, John W., 2017. "Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 233-260, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:37:y:2017:i:03:p:233-260_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X16000106/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. Peter Bils & Robert J. Carroll & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2024. "Strategic avoidance and rulemaking procedures," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(2), pages 156-185, April.
    2. Howell, William & Shepsle, Kenneth & Wolton, Stephane, 2020. "Executive Absolutism: A Model," MPRA Paper 98221, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Luis E. Mejía, 2021. "Judicial review of regulatory decisions: Decoding the contents of appeals against agencies in Spain and the United Kingdom," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 760-784, July.

    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:jnlpup:v:37:y:2017:i:03:p:233-260_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/pup .

    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.