IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-04-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Regulatory Impact Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Morgenstern, Richard

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Harrington, Winston

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Federal agencies in the United States are required to prepare regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for every major regulatory action they undertake. Increasingly, other OECD countries are imposing similar requirements. However, there has been little examination of the quality of these documents or of the uses to which they have been put in the regulatory process or elsewhere. In this paper we survey previous efforts to evaluate RIAs and find a fair amount of evaluation of RIAs as stand-alone documents, but much less evaluation of their contribution to producing better regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgenstern, Richard & Harrington, Winston, 2004. "Evaluating Regulatory Impact Analyses," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-04, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-04-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winston Harrington & Richard D. Morgenstern & Peter Nelson, 2000. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 297-322.
    2. Harrington, Winston, 2003. "Regulating Industrial Water Pollution in the United States," Discussion Papers 10608, Resources for the Future.
    3. Harrington, Winston, 2003. "Regulating Industrial Water Pollution in the United States," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-03, Resources for the Future.
    4. repec:reg:rpubli:322 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:reg:ranaly:150 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jennifer Franz & Colin Kirkpatrick, 2007. "Integrating Sustainable Development Into European Policymaking: The Role Of Impact Assessments," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 141-160.
    2. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Aghaei, Parvaneh, 2021. "Differences between policy assessment & policy evaluation; a case study on supportive policies for knowledge-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    4. Lee, Norman & Kirkpatrick, Colin, 2004. "A Pilot Study of the Quality of European Commission Extended Impact Assessment," Impact Assessment Research Centre (IARC) Working Papers 30580, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    5. Claudio M. Radaelli, 2004. "Getting to Grips with Quality in the Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 271-276, October.
    6. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.

    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. Carmen Arguedas, 2008. "To Comply or Not To Comply? Pollution Standard Setting Under Costly Monitoring and Sanctioning," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 155-168, October.
    2. Carmen Arguedas & Eva Camacho & José Zofío, 2010. "Environmental Policy Instruments: Technology Adoption Incentives with Imperfect Compliance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 261-274, October.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt & Paul, Anthony, 2012. "Retail electricity price savings from compliance flexibility in GHG standards for stationary sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 67-77.
    4. Norman, Catherine S. & DECANIO, STEPHEN J & Fan, Lin, 2007. "Opportunities and Challenges for the 20th Anniversary of the Montréal Protocol," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3t90g0gr, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    5. Managi, Shunsuke & Opaluch, James J. & Jin, Di & Grigalunas, Thomas A., 2006. "Stochastic frontier analysis of total factor productivity in the offshore oil and gas industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 204-215, November.
    6. Frank Ackerman, "undated". "The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs," GDAE Working Papers 06-02, GDAE, Tufts University.
    7. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Frontrunners and Laggards: The Strategy of Environmental Regulation under Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 325-346, November.
    8. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
    9. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    10. Shobe, William & Palmer, Karen L. & Myers, Erica & Holt, Charles & Goeree, Jacob K. & Burtraw, Dallas, 2010. "An Experimental Analysis of Auctioning Emission Allowances Under a Loose Cap," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Shreekar Pradhan & J. Scott Holladay & Mohammed Mohsin & Shreekar Pradhan, 2015. "Environmental Policy Instruments and Uncertainties Under Free Trade and Capital Mobility," EcoMod2015 8102, EcoMod.
    12. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    13. Gregor Schwerhoff, 2013. "Leadership and International Climate Cooperation," Working Papers 2013.97, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Haoran He & Yefeng Chen, 2021. "Auction mechanisms for allocating subsidies for carbon emissions reduction: an experimental investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 387-430, August.
    15. Lori D. Snyder & Nolan H. Miller & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 431-435, May.
    16. Gregor Schwerhoff, 2016. "The economics of leadership in climate change mitigation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 196-214, March.
    17. Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin, 2012. "The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 855-880, May.
    18. Robert W. Hahn & Katrina Kosec & Peter J. Neumann & Scott Wallsten, 2006. "What Affects the Quality of Economic Analysis for Life‐Saving Investments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 641-655, June.
    19. David Newbery, 2017. "The economics of air pollution from fossil fuels," Working Papers EPRG 1708, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Curtis Carlson & Dallas Burtraw & Maureen Cropper & Karen L. Palmer, 2000. "Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1292-1326, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    regulation; RIA; benefit-cost analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-04-04. 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.