IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation

Author

Listed:
  • Beierle, Thomas

Abstract

Of all recent efforts to transform the federal bureaucracy through the use of information technology, electronic rulemaking holds the most potential for enhancing the role of the public in policymaking. In its more expansive formulation, electronic rulemaking would allow citizens to learn about proposed regulations on the Web, comment on them electronically, read comments by others, and even discuss relevant issues with fellow citizens and agency staff. This paper outlines what we should expect from public involvement in electronic rulemaking, concluding that its promise lies in embedding democratic deliberation into administrative decisionmaking. The current move to put rulemaking dockets online, while important, is likely to fall short of electronic rulemaking’s potential. For important rules, electronic dockets should be supplemented with electronic dialogues, which support and encourage iterative discussions.

Suggested Citation

  • Beierle, Thomas, 2003. "Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-22, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-03-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cahill, Sarah, 2000. "Electronic Democracy and Environmental Governance: A Survey of the States," Discussion Papers 10700, Resources for the Future.
    2. Beierle, Thomas & Cahill, Sarah, 2000. "Electronic Democracy and Environmental Governance: A Survey of the States," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-42, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Lodge & Kai Wegrich, 2015. "Crowdsourcing and regulatory reviews: A new way of challenging red tape in British government?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 30-46, March.
    2. Sarah Giest, 2017. "Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 367-382, September.

    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. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    2. Joon Hyoung Lim & Eungkyoon Lee, 2012. "Information technologies, community characteristics and environmental outcomes: evidence from South Korea," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(3), pages 271-296, May.
    3. Beierle, Thomas C., 2003. "Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation," Discussion Papers 10681, Resources for the Future.

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-03-22. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.