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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Coglianese, Cary, 2004. "E-Rulemaking: Information Technology and the Regulatory Process," Working Paper Series rwp04-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. 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.
    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. Díez-Esteban, José María & Farinha, Jorge Bento & García-Gómez, Conrado Diego, 2016. "The role of institutional investors in propagating the 2007 financial crisis in Southern Europe," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 439-454.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Heino, Noora & Alimov, Naufal & Tuominen, Pasi, 2024. "Family firm employment behavior during a financial crisis: Does generational stage matter?," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    5. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. 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.
    7. Laurent Franckx & Isabelle Brose, 2004. "A theoretical framework for incentives in the public sector," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8.
    8. Li, Zhongze & Wu, Yuchen & Zhang, Yi, 2024. "The U-shape relationship between corporate social responsibility decoupling and audit fees," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(PB).
    9. 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.
    10. Naoshi Ikeda & Kotaro Inoue & Sho Watanabe, 2018. "Enjoying the Quiet Life: Corporate Decision-making by Entrenched Managers," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Governance (NBER-TCER-CEPR Conference), National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Dominance of hybrid contratum strategies over momentum and contrarian strategies: half a century of evidence," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(4), pages 471-505, December.
    12. Gaganis, Chrysovalantis & Lozano-Vivas, Ana & Papadimitri, Panagiota & Pasiouras, Fotios, 2020. "Macroprudential policies, corporate governance and bank risk: Cross-country evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 126-142.
    13. Michael Regan, 2013. "Public project procurement and the case for public–private partnerships," Chapters, in: John Farrar & David G. Mayes (ed.), Globalisation, the Global Financial Crisis and the State, chapter 8, pages 172-196, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Maria Rosaria Alfano & Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene, 2023. "Eppur si muove: an evaluation of museum policy reform in Italy," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(1), pages 97-131, March.
    17. Sabri Boubaker & Riadh Manita & Wael Rouatbi, 2021. "Large shareholders, control contestability and firm productive efficiency," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 591-614, January.
    18. Martin Chalkley, 2018. "Private Provision of Publicly Funded Health Care: The Economics of Ownership," Briefing 002055, Office of Health Economics.
    19. Tran, Quoc Trung, 2023. "Employment protection and corporate risk-taking," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    20. 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.

    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.