IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/27233.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Three Myths about Federal Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick A. McLaughlin
  • Casey B. Mulligan

Abstract

Despite evidence to the contrary, three common myths persist about federal regulations. The first myth is that many regulations concern the environment, but in fact only a small minority of regulations are environmental. The second myth is that most regulations contain quantitative estimates of costs or benefits. However, these quantitative estimates appear rarely in published rules, contradicting the impression given by executive orders and Office of Management and Budget guidance, which require cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and clearly articulate sound economic principles for conducting CBA. Environmental rules have relatively higher-quality CBAs, at least by the low standards of other federal rules. The third myth, which is particularly relevant to the historic regulations promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic, is the misperception that regulatory costs are primarily clerical, rather than opportunity or resource costs. If technocrats have triumphed in the regulatory arena, their victory has not been earned by the merits of their analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick A. McLaughlin & Casey B. Mulligan, 2020. "Three Myths about Federal Regulation," NBER Working Papers 27233, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:27233
    Note: EEE LE PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w27233.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Congressional Budget Office, 2018. "Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2018 to 2028," Reports 53826, Congressional Budget Office.
    2. 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.
    3. Abby Alpert & David Powell & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, 2018. "Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1-35, November.
    4. Art Fraas & Randall Lutter, 2011. "The Challenges of Improving the Economic Analysis of Pending Regulations: The Experience of OMB Circular A-4," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 71-85, October.
    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. Timothy Fitzgerald & Kevin Hassett & Cody Kallen & Casey B. Mulligan, 2020. "An Analysis of Vice President Biden's Economic Agenda: The Long Run Impacts of its Regulation, Taxes, and Spending," Working Papers 2020-157, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    2. MORIKAWA Masayuki, 2022. "Compliance Costs of Regulations and Productivity," Policy Discussion Papers 22025, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    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. Louis‐Philippe Beland & Jason Huh & Dongwoo Kim, 2024. "The effect of opioid use on traffic fatalities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1123-1132, June.
    2. Christopher J. Ruhm, 2019. "Shackling the Identification Police?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1016-1026, April.
    3. Effrosyni Adamopoulou & Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Karen Kopecky, 2024. "The Role of Friends in the Opioid Epidemic," NBER Working Papers 32032, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Amy Finkelstein & Matthew Gentzkow & Dean Li & Heidi L. Williams, 2022. "What Drives Risky Prescription Opioid Use? Evidence from Migration," NBER Working Papers 30471, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    6. d'Este, Rocco, 2022. "Scientific Advancements in Illegal Drugs Production and Institutional Responses: New Psychoactive Substances, Self-Harm, and Violence inside Prisons," IZA Discussion Papers 15248, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Gihleb, Rania & Giuntella, Osea & Zhang, Ning, 2020. "Prescription drug monitoring programs and neonatal outcomes," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Jörg Kalbfuß & Reto Odermatt & Alois Stutzer, 2018. "Medical marijuana laws and mental health in the United States," CEP Discussion Papers dp1546, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. David Powell & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, 2021. "The Evolving Consequences of OxyContin Reformulation on Drug Overdoses," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(1), pages 41-67.
    10. Bhashkar Mazumder, 2023. "The Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on Labor Market Activity and Credit Outcomes," Working Paper Series WP 2023-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    11. Simone Balestra & Helge Liebert & Nicole Maestas & Tisamarie B. Sherry, 2021. "Behavioral Responses to Supply-Side Drug Policy During the Opioid Epidemic," NBER Working Papers 29596, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Molly Schnell & Janet Currie, 2018. "Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: Is There a Role for Physician Education?," American Journal of Health Economics, MIT Press, vol. 4(3), pages 383-410, Summer.
    13. 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.
    14. Buckles, Kasey & Evans, William N. & Lieber, Ethan M.J., 2023. "The drug crisis and the living arrangements of children," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Schwab, Thomas & Todtenhaupt, Maximilian, 2021. "Thinking outside the box: The cross-border effect of tax cuts on R&D," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Alberto Ortega, 2023. "Medicaid Expansion and mental health treatment: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 755-806, April.
    19. Ritter, Patricia I., 2023. "Soda expansion in the tropics: The effect on obesity rates among women without piped water at home," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    20. Aliprantis, Dionissi & Fee, Kyle & Schweitzer, Mark E., 2023. "Opioids and the labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:nbr:nberwo:27233. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.