IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarx/mzy2x.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom

Author

Listed:
  • Newhart, Mary
  • Brooks, Joshua
  • Library, Cornell

Abstract

Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications. 19. Rulemaking, the process through which United States (U.S.) federal government agencies develop major health, safety and economic regulations, was an early target of electronic government (e-government) efforts. Because it was an established decision-making process that had substantial formal requirements of transparency, public participation and responsiveness it seemed a perfect target for technology-supported participatory policymaking. It was believed that new technologies could transform rulemaking, increasing its democratic legitimacy and improving its policy outcomes by broadening the range of participating individuals and groups (Brandon and Carlitz, 2003; Coglianese, 2004; Noveck, 2004). Despite the promise of a more deliberative and democratic process, rulemaking efforts have failed to produce broader meaningful public engagement. In this paper we examine if lack of adoption of participatory eRulemaking platforms can be explained by the disruption to agencies’ established rulemaking practices. We will consider how agencies react to technological innovation as a risk due to their deep-rooted organizational cultures and the impact of judicial and political oversight. We will provide examples of agency risk and culture, including from our own experiences with RegulationRoom, a socio-technological participation platform that has facilitated public participation in six federal rulemakings. We will also draw on a comparison of for-profit businesses and rulemaking agencies in thinking about motivation to adopt (or avoid) new technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Newhart, Mary & Brooks, Joshua & Library, Cornell, 2018. "Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom," LawArXiv mzy2x, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarx:mzy2x
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/mzy2x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5a550427ad16c8000f517d92/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/mzy2x?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. Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2003. "Incentives, Choice, and Accountability in the Provision of Public Services," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 235-249, Summer.
    2. Coglianese, Cary, 2004. "E-Rulemaking: Information Technology and the Regulatory Process," Working Paper Series rwp04-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Kose John & Lubomir Litov & Bernard Yeung, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Risk‐Taking," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1679-1728, August.
    4. T. N. Carver, 1901. "The Risk Theory of Profits," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 15(3), pages 456-458.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Carlo Borzaga & Ermanno Tortia, 2004. "Worker involvement in entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations. Toward a new assessment of workers' perceived satisfaction and fairness," Department of Economics Working Papers 0409, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    2. Ilhan-Nas, Tulay & Okan, Tarhan & Tatoglu, Ekrem & Demirbag, Mehmet & Wood, Geoffrey & Glaister, Keith W., 2018. "Board composition, family ownership, institutional distance and the foreign equity ownership strategies of Turkish MNEs," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 862-879.
    3. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    4. Laurent Franckx & Isabelle Brose, 2004. "A theoretical framework for incentives in the public sector," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8.
    5. Xiaodong Teng & Kun-Shan Wu & Lopin Kuo & Bao-Guang Chang, 2023. "Investigating the double-edged sword effect of environmental, social and governance practices on corporate risk-taking in the high-tech industry," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(2), pages 511-549, June.
    6. Gropp, Reint E. & Köhler, Matthias, 2010. "Bank owners or bank managers: who is keen on risk? Evidence from the financial crisis," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Marisa Ratto & Emma Tominey, 2017. "Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Government Agency," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 117-141, October.
    8. Sulu Zhu & Pengqun Gao & Zhen Tang & Ming Tian, 2022. "The Research Venation Analysis and Future Prospects of Organizational Slack," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2004. "The Efficiency of Public Sector Outsourcing Contracts: A Literature Review," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n29, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    10. Yuan, Na & Gao, Yihong, 2022. "Does green credit policy impact corporate cash holdings?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Jiang, Tianjiao & Levine, Ross & Lin, Chen & Wei, Lai, 2020. "Bank deregulation and corporate risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Söhnke M. Bartram & Gregory Brown & René M. Stulz, 2012. "Why Are U.S. Stocks More Volatile?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(4), pages 1329-1370, August.
    13. Wu, Meng-Wen & Shen, Chung Hua, 2019. "Effects of shadow banking on bank risks from the view of capital adequacy," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 176-197.
    14. Lee, Sanghoon, 2014. "The relationship between growth and profit: evidence from firm-level panel data," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Beltratti, Andrea & Stulz, René M., 2012. "The credit crisis around the globe: Why did some banks perform better?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 1-17.
    16. Anginer, D. & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Huizinga, H.P. & Ma, K., 2014. "Corporate Governance and Bank Insolvency Risk : International Evidence," Other publications TiSEM 3da1df9f-1cbe-4a14-91be-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Huang, Liangxiong & Ma, Minghui & Wang, Xianbin, 2022. "Clan culture and risk-taking of Chinese enterprises," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Serfling, Matthew A., 2014. "CEO age and the riskiness of corporate policies," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 251-273.
    19. Zulamir Hassani, Afdhal, 2019. "The Relationship Between Liquidity Risk and Internal and External Factors in TCL Corporation," MPRA Paper 97208, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Nov 2019.
    20. Fang, Yiwei & Fornaro, James & Li, Lingxiang & Zhu, Yun, 2018. "The impact of accounting laws and standards on bank risks: Evidence from transition countries," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 103-118.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:lawarx:mzy2x. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/lawarxiv/discover .

    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.