IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i6p893-901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defragmenting the Regulatory Process

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart Shapiro

Abstract

The regulatory process is often criticized for being cumbersome and slow, much like a computer whose hard drive is fragmented by files no longer used or useful. Like such a computer, the regulatory process contains many requirements of dubious utility. These include the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and numerous executive orders. While other parts of the regulatory process such as notice and comment and cost‐benefit analysis have received much more academic attention, these other parts of the process deserve examination as well. This article argues that such an examination will reveal that these statutes and executive orders add little of value to the regulatory process while consuming agency resources. An improved requirement for cost‐benefit analysis with distributional analysis could easily replace virtually all of these requirements and improve regulations while reducing the time needed to promulgate regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart Shapiro, 2011. "Defragmenting the Regulatory Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 893-901, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:893-901
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01556.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01556.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01556.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Hahn & Robert E. Litan, 2005. "Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the US and Europe," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 473-508, June.
    2. repec:reg:rpubli:299 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Shapiro, Stuart, 2008. "Evaluating the benefits and costs of regulatory reforms: What questions need to be asked?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 223-230, August.
    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. Carl F. Cranor & Adam M. Finkel, 2018. "Toward the usable recognition of individual benefits and costs in regulatory analysis and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 131-149, March.

    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. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence-Based Policy-Making or Policy-Based Evidence-Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1065-1081, September.
    4. Cave, Jonathan & Gibson, Stephen, 2023. "Primary and secondary legislation – assessing the impacts of rules for making rules," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1486, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    5. Oana - Catalina Tapurica & Florin TACHE, 2011. "Quantifying Social Objectives Aiming Pollution Control – An Economic Perspective Upon Strategic Management And Project Management," Review of General Management, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Management Brasov, vol. 14(2), pages 130-138, November.
    6. Patrick Messerlin, 2004. "Problems of transposition and Members States “screening” process and timetable," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/8324, Sciences Po.
    7. Patrick Messerlin, 2006. "Europe after the 'no' votes : mapping a new economic path : thirty-fifth Wincott Lecture, 3 October 2005," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/8309, Sciences Po.
    8. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    9. Neal D. Woods, 2018. "Regulatory Analysis Procedures and Political Influence on Bureaucratic Policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 299-313, June.
    10. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    11. Patrick Messerlin, 2004. "Problems of transposition and Members States "screening" process and timetable," Working Papers hal-00973081, HAL.
    12. Djankov, Simeon & Luksic, Igor & Zhang, Eva, 2022. "Technology as deregulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118882, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Patrick A. McLaughlin & Casey B. Mulligan, 2020. "Three Myths about Federal Regulation," NBER Working Papers 27233, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8309 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Patrick Messerlin, 2006. "Europe after the 'no' votes : mapping a new economic path," Post-Print hal-00973109, HAL.
    16. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence‐Based Policy‐Making or Policy‐Based Evidence‐Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 1065-1081, September.
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8324 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Beat Bernet, 2005. "Towards an Economic Analysis of Financial Markets Regulation?," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 19(3), pages 313-322, October.
    19. Laura Cavallo & Giuseppe Coco & Mario Martelli, 2009. "Evaluating administrative burdens through SCM: some indications from the Italian experience," SERIES 0023, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza - Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro", revised Apr 2009.

    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:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:893-901. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.