IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v41y2008i1p33-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the amount of participation matter? Public comments, agency responses and the time to finalize a regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart Shapiro

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart Shapiro, 2008. "Does the amount of participation matter? Public comments, agency responses and the time to finalize a regulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(1), pages 33-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:41:y:2008:i:1:p:33-49
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-007-9051-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-007-9051-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-007-9051-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McNollgast, 1999. "The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 180-217, April.
    2. Balla, Steven J., 1998. "Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 663-673, September.
    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. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).

    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. John M. de Figueiredo & Edward H. Stiglitz, 2015. "Democratic Rulemaking," NBER Working Papers 21765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Bugarin, M. B., 2007. "Benefit Sharing: An Incentive Mechanism for Social Control of Government Expenditure," Insper Working Papers wpe_77, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    3. André Corrêa d’Almeida & Donald Klingner, 2008. "FEMA and the Witt Revolution: Testing the Hypothesis of “Bureaucratic Autonomy”," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 291-305, December.
    4. Brown, Richard S., 2016. "Lobbying, political connectedness and financial performance in the air transportation industry," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 61-69.
    5. Mercy B. DeMenno, 2019. "Technocracy, democracy, and public policy: An evaluation of public participation in retrospective regulatory review," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 362-383, September.
    6. Louis‐Robert Beaulieu‐Guay & Marc Tremblay‐Faulkner & Éric Montpetit, 2021. "Does business influence government regulations? New evidence from Canadian impact assessments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1419-1435, October.
    7. Fink, Simon & Ruffing, Eva, 2020. "Learning in iterated consultation procedures – The example of the German electricity grid demand planning," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. Michael David Thomas, 2019. "Reapplying behavioral symmetry: public choice and choice architecture," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 11-25, July.
    9. Edmund Malesky & Markus Taussig, 2019. "How Do Firms Feel About Participation by Their Peers in the Regulatory Design Process? An Online Survey Experiment Testing the Substantive Change and Spillover Mechanisms," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 129-150, June.
    10. Bugarin, Mauricio & Vieira, Laercio, 2008. "Benefit sharing: An incentive mechanism for social control of government expenditure," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 673-690, November.
    11. Marín Uribe, Pedro Luis & Sicotte, Richard, 2003. "Does the Separation of Regulatory Powers Reduce the Threat of Capture? Evidence from the US Maritime Bureaucracy," CEPR Discussion Papers 4093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Keith Naughton & Celeste Schmid & Susan Webb Yackee & Xueyong Zhan, 2009. "Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 258-277.
    13. Broughel, James & Bose, Feler & Baugus, Brian, 2022. "A 50-State Review of Regulatory Procedures," Working Papers 10277, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    14. James C. Clingermayer, 2004. "Heresthetics and Happenstance: Intentional and Unintentional Exclusionary Impacts of the Zoning Decision-making Process," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 377-388, February.
    15. Bertoli, Paola & Garcia, Adriana G. & Garoupa, Nuno, 2022. "Testing an application of the political insurance model: The case of the Mexican state-level administrative courts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 272-287.
    16. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    17. Mercy B. DeMenno, 2020. "Banking on burden reduction: how the global financial crisis shaped the political economy of banking regulation," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(4), pages 315-342, December.
    18. Kwan Nok Chan & Shiwei Fan, 2021. "Friction and bureaucratic control in authoritarian regimes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1406-1418, October.
    19. Jordan Carr Peterson, 2018. "All Their Eggs in One Basket? Ideological Congruence in Congress and the Bicameral Origins of Concentrated Delegation to the Bureaucracy," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    20. Amy McKay, 2011. "The decision to lobby bureaucrats," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 123-138, April.

    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:kap:policy:v:41:y:2008:i:1:p:33-49. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.