About the Authors
Jerry ElligSenior Research FellowMercatus Center at George Mason University firstname.lastname@example.orgRosemarie FikeDoctoral CandidateDepartment of EconomicsFlorida State Universityrfike@fsu.edu
The authors wish to thank Ted Bolema, Robin Bowen, Antony Davies, Randy Holcombe, Patrick McLaughlin, Thomas Stratmann, Richard Williams, and two anonymous reviewers for helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank Mark Adams for helpful discussions andresearch assistance, and Steve Rossi and Patrick McLaughlin for developing the word-count data.
Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thoroughanalysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branchregulations. We employ data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likelyeffects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality and use of regulatory impactanalysis (RIA). Many specific types of activity by agencies and OIRA are correlated with higher-quality analysis and greater use of analysis in decisions, and the effects are relatively large. Our results suggest that greater use of Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings for major regulations, formal hearings for important rules, articulation of retrospective review plans at thetime regulations are issued, and expansion of OIRA’s resources and role may improve thequality and use of RIAs.
D61, D73, D78, H11, H83, K23, L51, P16
regulation, regulatory reform, regulatory process, benefit-cost analysis, cost-benefit,regulatory impact analysis, regulatory review