IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v7y2013i2p153-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Continuity, change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Ellig
  • Patrick A. McLaughlin
  • John F. Morrall III

Abstract

This paper compares the quality and use of regulatory analysis accompanying economically significant regulations proposed by US executive branch agencies in 2008, 2009, and 2010. We find that the quality of regulatory analysis is generally low, but varies widely. Budget regulations, which define how the federal government will spend money or collect revenues, have much lower‐quality analysis than other regulations. The Bush administration's “midnight” regulations finalized between Election Day and Inauguration Day, along with other regulations left for the Obama administration to finalize, tended to have lower‐quality analysis. Most differences between the Bush and Obama administrations depend on agencies' policy preferences. More conservative agencies tended to produce better analysis in the Obama administration, and more liberal agencies tended to do so in the Bush administration. This suggests that agencies more central to an administration's policy priorities do not have to produce as good an analysis to get their regulations promulgated.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin & John F. Morrall III, 2013. "Continuity, change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 153-173, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:153-173
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01149.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01149.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01149.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin, 2012. "The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 855-880, May.
    2. Winston Harrington & Richard D. Morgenstern & Peter Nelson, 2000. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 297-322.
    3. Donald R. Arbuckle, 2011. "The Role of Analysis on the 17 Most Political Acres on the Face of the Earth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 884-892, June.
    4. McGarity,Thomas O., 1991. "Reinventing Rationality," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521402569, September.
    5. Patrick McLaughlin, 2011. "The consequences of midnight regulations and other surges in regulatory activity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 395-412, June.
    6. repec:reg:rpubli:299 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Art Fraas & Randall Lutter, 2011. "The Challenges of Improving the Economic Analysis of Pending Regulations: The Experience of OMB Circular A-4," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 71-85, October.
    8. Harrington, Winston, 2006. "Grading Estimates of the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-39, Resources for the Future.
    9. Clinton, Joshua D. & Lewis, David E., 2008. "Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-20, January.
    10. de Rugy, Veronique & Davies, Antony, 2009. "Midnight regulations and the Cinderella effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 886-890, December.
    11. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Ellig, Jerry & Horney, Michael, 2016. "Preventing a Regulatory Train Wreck: Mandated Regulation and the Cautionary Tale of Positive Train Control," Working Papers 06865, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    3. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Improvements in SEC Economic Analysis since Business Roundtable: A Structured Assessment," Working Papers 07002, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    4. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2023. "Sensitivity to scope in estimating the social benefits of prolonging lives for regulatory decisions using national stated preference tradeoffs," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 509-528, September.
    5. McLaughlin, Patrick & Stanley, Laura, 2016. "Regulation and Income Inequality: The Regressive Effects of Entry Regulations," Working Papers 05145, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Fraas, Art & Morgenstern, Richard, 2014. "Identifying the analytical implications of alternative regulatory philosophies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 137-171, January.
    3. Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin, 2012. "The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 855-880, May.
    4. Robert W. Hahn & Robert A. Ritz, 2015. "Does the Social Cost of Carbon Matter? Evidence from US Policy," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 229-248.
    5. Jihad C. Elnaboulsi & Wassim Daher & Yiğit Sağlam, 2023. "Environmental taxation, information precision, and information sharing," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(2), pages 301-341, April.
    6. David Anthoff & Robert Hahn, 2010. "Government failure and market failure: on the inefficiency of environmental and energy policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(2), pages 197-224, Summer.
    7. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Bester, Dirk W., 2021. "The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 395-419, October.
    8. Oliver Fritsch & Jonathan C. Kamkhaji & Claudio M. Radaelli, 2017. "Explaining the content of impact assessment in the United Kingdom: Learning across time, sectors, and departments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 325-342, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Dima Yazji Shamoun & Bruce Yandle, 2016. "Asserting presidential preferences in a regulatory review bureaucracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 87-111, January.
    11. Simpson R. David, 2014. "Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 315-332, June.
    12. Caroline Cecot & Robert Hahn & Andrea Renda & Lorna Schrefler, 2008. "An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 405-424, December.
    13. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    14. Sean E. Mulholland, 2019. "Stratification by regulation: Are bootleggers and Baptists biased?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 105-130, July.
    15. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt & Paul, Anthony, 2012. "Retail electricity price savings from compliance flexibility in GHG standards for stationary sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 67-77.
    16. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Norman, Catherine S. & DECANIO, STEPHEN J & Fan, Lin, 2007. "Opportunities and Challenges for the 20th Anniversary of the Montréal Protocol," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3t90g0gr, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    18. Managi, Shunsuke & Opaluch, James J. & Jin, Di & Grigalunas, Thomas A., 2006. "Stochastic frontier analysis of total factor productivity in the offshore oil and gas industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 204-215, November.
    19. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    20. Frank Ackerman, "undated". "The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs," GDAE Working Papers 06-02, GDAE, Tufts University.

    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:wly:reggov:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:153-173. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.