Document Detail


Evaluating the benefits and costs of regulatory reforms: what questions need to be asked?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  18486971     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
In 1984, Portney argued that "[w]e should scrutinize proposed reforms of the rulemaking process every bit as carefully as the regulations that process produces." In the 23 years since then, the regulatory process on the federal level has been continuously reformed by statute, by executive order, and by directives from the OMB. Despite the extensive debate on the need for these reforms, there has been very little analysis of the reforms themselves. This paper updates Portney's work on analyzing cost-benefit analysis and expands it to evaluate reforms of the regulatory process. I use as my primary example the recent peer-review guidelines issued by OMB. I argue that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in regulatory reforms, that the peer-review guidelines likely have costs that exceed their benefits, and that further regulatory reforms merit closer evaluation.
Authors:
Stuart Shapiro
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2008-04-10
Journal Detail:
Title:  Evaluation and program planning     Volume:  31     ISSN:  1873-7870     ISO Abbreviation:  Eval Program Plann     Publication Date:  2008 Aug 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2008-07-08     Completed Date:  2008-09-10     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7801727     Medline TA:  Eval Program Plann     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  223-30     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue #274, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. stuartsh@rci.rutgers.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Cost-Benefit Analysis*
Government Regulation*
Guidelines as Topic
Peer Review / standards*
United States

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  A phenomenological model for the degradation of biodegradable polymers.
Next Document:  Revisiting a theory of negotiation: the utility of Markiewicz (2005) proposed six principles.