IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v8y2017i03p291-304_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The New U.S. Regulatory Budgeting Rules in Light of the International Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Renda, Andrea

Abstract

Executive Order (EO) 13771 on “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs†introduces a new regulatory budgeting system in the U.S. federal rulemaking process. International experience suggests that the new rule, aimed both at reducing the number of regulations and the volume of regulatory costs, will focus on a subset of regulatory impacts, most certainly the direct costs imposed by regulation on businesses, or even a subset thereof. The paper discusses possible ways to make sense of the new rule, without undermining the soundness of benefit-cost analysis mandated by EO12866. The paper concludes that the new system, while potentially promoting more retrospective regulatory reviews, will risk fundamentally affecting the quality of regulation in the United States, generating frictions and inefficiencies throughout the administration, to the detriment of social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Renda, Andrea, 2017. "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The New U.S. Regulatory Budgeting Rules in Light of the International Experience," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 291-304, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:8:y:2017:i:03:p:291-304_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588817000185/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gunnar Prause & Eunice Omolola Olaniyi, 2019. "A compliance cost analysis of the SECA regulation in the Baltic Sea," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(4), pages 1907-1921, June.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jbcoan:v:8:y:2017:i:03:p:291-304_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    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.