Promoting Best Practices for US Regulatory Analysis |
|
|
The Regulatory Review Essay
October 12, 2023
By Joseph Cordes, Susan Dudley, Donald S. Kenkel, Clark Nardinelli, Lisa A. Robinson, Craig Thornton, and W. Kip Viscusi
Former presidents of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis write that Circular A-4 has proven durable across many presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican, because it is based on objective and nonpartisan principles. “We believe that, after 20 years, revisions to Circular A-4 are appropriate and timely. We also believe, however, that the Circular should focus on basic, widely accepted principles that have bipartisan support and not risk revision with each incoming administration.”
|
|
|
| October 4, 2023
Commentary by Sarah Hay
|
|
|
The Congressional Review Act gives Congress the ability to overturn federal regulations. Only ten months into the current session of Congress, Congress has passed seven CRA resolutions targeting Biden administration rules. This piece investigates why that could be happening, despite Democratic control of the Senate.
Read More >
|
|
|
| September 18, 2023
Op-ed by Susan Dudley and Mary Sullivan for Truth On the Market
|
|
|
The Biden administration’s draft revisions to its merger and regulatory analysis guidelines both appear designed to tilt analysis to achieve this administration’s policy preferences. Some of the proposed changes depart from widely accepted practices, principles, and evidence. The draft Merger Guidelines appear to be aimed at preventing mergers and preventing further concentration in markets, even when efficient. The draft Circular A-4 changes appear to put a thumb on the scale in favor of more regulatory control over private actions. In both cases, the revisions abandon longstanding, bipartisan agreement on the importance of understanding how government actions affect economic efficiency and social welfare.
Read More >
|
|
|
| September 18, 2023
By Mary Sullivan
|
|
|
For many years, tracing back to the issuance of Merger Guidelines in 1982, there has been a broad and bipartisan consensus that the proper goal of merger enforcement policy was to identify and attempt to prevent only those mergers that seemed likely to reduce the welfare of consumers or other “trading partners.” These are inherently economic questions, and the Guidelines have historically rested on economic analysis as its primary tool for answering them. This historical consensus made the Merger Guidelines not only a true bipartisan achievement, but led courts to afford them considerable deference in litigation.
Read More >
|
|
|
|
September 5, 2023
Working paper by Robert W. Crandall
|
|
|
For much of the past decade, US communications policymakers have been debating the need for net-neutrality regulation of “dominant” communications-carrier platforms. One of the reasons advanced for regulating these carriers derives from a fear that carriers could reduce competition in the production and distribution of video media through their ownership of media companies, but is there any evidence supporting the notion that vertically integrated communications companies have successfully used such a strategy? This paper provides evidence from the financial markets that carrier integration into video production has not redounded to the benefit of these companies’ stockholders.
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 28, 2023
Former SBCA presidents advocate for objective analysis
|
|
|
Writing to OIRA Administrator Richard Revesz, all the past presidents of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) raise concerns that some of proposed changes to OMB Circular A-4 deviate from the best available current economic science. They offer recommendations to ensure final changes to the Circular are based on widely accepted principles and objective evidence.
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 28, 2023
Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Susan Dudley and W. Kip Viscusi
|
|
|
President Biden recently promised to “modernize” regulatory review, and that includes a major overhaul of how agencies measure the benefits and costs of their proposed rules. But some of the changes proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget appear to embed political objectives in the analysis. That isn’t what benefit-cost analysis—required by presidents for more than 40 years and increasingly by courts—is supposed to do. Such modifications would reduce its value and threaten to upend the longstanding bipartisan reliance on best practices and evidence. This could lead to even wilder partisan swings in policy than the country now faces.
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 22, 2023
As a peer reviewer selected by Office of Management and Budget, Joseph Cordes evaluated Draft Circular A-4: Guidance on regulatory analysis
|
|
|
In his peer review comment, Cordes observes that “regulatory impact analysis should be transparent to policy officials who will base decisions on it and the public,” and notes that “the 2023 draft unintentionally supports approaches that may reduce that transparency,” including with respect to the discount rate, distributional weighting, global impacts.” He recommends that “simple, clear guidance (supported by templates, web-based tools, and examples available separately, as suggested above) could yield better analyses in most cases.”
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 22, 2023
Commentary by Dylan Desjardins
|
|
|
Automakers have been removing AM radio capability from electric vehicles in growing numbers, prompting a variety of responses from commercial and Congressional actors. But would regulatory action mandating AM radio in vehicles serve the public interest?
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 15, 2023
Working paper by Reeve Bull
|
|
|
If regulatory intervention is truly necessary, must it occur at the federal, as opposed to the state or local, level?
Read More > | Listen to Podcast >
|
|
|
| August 8, 2023
Column by Susan Dudley for Forbes on the Draft Circular A-4
|
|
|
OMB has proposed to lower the discount rate by which regulatory agencies translate future dollars into present value terms from 7% and 3% to 1.7%. As this hurdle rate gets lower, agencies will find it easier to justify regulations that impose short-term costs in exchange for the promise of long-term benefits on “analytical” grounds rather than policy preferences.
Read More >
|
|
|
| August 2, 2023
Commentary by Sarah Hay
|
|
|
This commentary examines the barriers to public participation in rulemaking and the specific strategies OIRA calls upon agencies to implement.
Read More > | Listen to Podcast >
|
|
|
Samuel Boateng Sarfo is a Master of Public Administration student at GW and a Research Assistant at the Regulatory Studies Center.
| | |
| | Listen to our podcast for insights on regulatory trends. Recent discussions have explored OMB's Draft Circular A-4, effective public engagement strategies for federal agencies, the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda, and more.
|
|
|
Parsing the Proposals for Modernizing Regulatory Review |
|
|
Interested in more analysis of the Biden Administration's Modernizing Regulatory Review actions? Explore our extensive coverage, including additional commentaries, insights, and public comments.
|
|
|
Gifts to the GW Regulatory Studies Center will make a difference in our mission to improve regulatory policy through research, education and outreach. The Center is a respected, non-partisan source of information and analysis on regulatory policy. Our scholars regularly publish research in academic journals, have helped educate a generation of leaders in the rulemaking process and are called upon by members of Congress, executive agencies, national media and industry leaders to provide insights into key regulatory policies.
Your support is key to our ability to continue to provide the objective, high quality information that is essential to constructive discourse on regulatory matters and we respectfully request that you make a tax-deductible contribution to the Center this year.
|
|
|
Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.
View this email online.
|
805 21st Street NW Ste. 600 | Wasington, DC 20052 US
|
|
|
This email was sent to .
To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.
|
|
|
|
