RegBlog celebrates the end of 2016 with the top opinion posts by regulatory law experts from the past year.
As the new year arrives, RegBlog would like to reflect on the many important regulatory developments and debates that occurred in the United States and around the world in 2016. We also want to recognize some of the excellent work we had the privilege to feature on RegBlog this past year. From Monday, December 26th through Wednesday, December 28th, we are presenting the top 50 essays published on RegBlog over the past 12 months, based on the number of page views.
Today we feature, in alphabetical order by author, the top Opinion essays from 2016. Visit our “Regulatory Year in Review” series main page for information about the top news and analysis essays and series.
Reeve T. Bull (Administrative Conference of the United States) | Monday, June 20
External and internal capture may be reduced through a more logical division of labor between Congress and agencies.
Mark Calabria (Cato Institute) | Thursday, June 23
When a regulation’s benefits exceed its costs, simplicity and interdisciplinary processes are essential to reducing capture.
Daniel Carpenter (Harvard University) | Wednesday, June 22
Regulatory capture, neither inevitable nor a death trap for agencies, must be reduced to advance public policy goals.
Christopher Carrigan (George Washington University) & Stuart Shapiro (Rutgers University) | Monday, July 25
Earlier and less burdensome regulatory impact analyses would lead to more transparent, better regulatory decisions.
Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania Law School) | Tuesday, November 15
Citizens and their leaders must strive to work together to solve problems and improve social and economic conditions.
Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania Law School) | Monday, May 16
Scholar examines what a world of regulation by robot might look like—an innovation that could be just around the corner.
Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania Law School) | Tuesday, July 5
Regulatory capture is hard to pin down, its elusiveness stemming from four principal factors.
Peter Conti-Brown (The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) | Thursday, April 21
New federal authority surrounding stress tests means banking supervisors take a back seat to regulators.
Susan Dudley (George Washington University) | Monday, July 4
Rent-seeking and profit-seeking behavior provide valuable insights into the concept of regulatory capture.
Adam M. Finkel (University of Michigan School of Public Health) | Monday, October 3
Despite its wide-ranging capabilities, OSHA has often let its detractors have their way. To combat this, it should enlist partners in all directions.
Jason Furman (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers) | Monday, June 13
Curbing excessive economic rents might bolster productivity and address rising inequality.
Brandon L. Garrett (University of Virginia School of Law) | Tuesday, June 21
Holding companies accountable for crimes is essential, yet more must be done to end “too big to jail” concerns.
John D. Graham (Indiana University Bloomington) & Paul R. Noe (American Forest & Paper Association) | Tuesday, April 26
A 2009 court decision could spur more cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory process.
John D. Graham (Indiana University Bloomington) & Paul R. Noe (American Forest & Paper Association) | Tuesday, September 26
Cost-benefit analysis is the most preferable form of analysis, and it should continue to be employed for important regulatory decisions.
Richard L. Hasen (University of California, Irvine, School of Law) | Wednesday, April 20
Recent court rulings, bureaucratic failings, and political conflict have loosened campaign finance rules.
Allison K. Hoffman (UCLA School of Law) | Monday, July 11
Zubik v. Burwell highlights thorny issues surrounding Obamacare’s contraceptive coverage requirement.
Donald C. Langevoort (Georgetown University Law Center) | Tuesday, August 2
Firms vary considerably in how they interpret regulatory commands and signals, posing enforcement challenges.
Mike Lee, U.S. Senator (R-Utah) | Thursday, June 16
Closer congressional supervision can prevent special interests from dominating the regulatory process.
Brian F. Mannix and Susan Dudley (George Washington University) | Monday, October 24
Experts argue that Donald Trump’s focus on jobs and worker impacts instead of the application of the net social benefits test is imprudent.
Wendell Pritchett (University of Pennsylvania Law School) | Tuesday, April 5
Those seeking to reform the regulation of higher education must understand the available tools.
Jed. S. Rakoff (United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York) | Monday, September 26
Prosecutions of individual corporate criminals can, in fact, be successful—and are critical for attaining justice.
Amy Sinden (Temple University Law School) | Monday, September 26
Recent Court decisions have not created a presumption in favor of formal cost-benefit analysis.
David Spence (University of Texas at Austin) | Monday, July 18
Two Supreme Court decisions raise questions about the role of states in emerging electricity markets.
Jim Tozzi (Center for Regulatory Effectiveness) | Friday, January 8
Regulatory expert highlights the “second most important institutional feature of the regulatory state.”
W. Kip Viscusi (Vanderbilt Law School) | Monday, November 14
E-cigarettes are less dangerous than is generally believed, posing a unique information challenge for regulators.
John Walke (Natural Resources Defense Council) | Monday, May 2
Recent proposed legislation may weaken key regulatory and law enforcement mechanisms.
Christopher Walker (Ohio State University Moritz College of Law) | Monday, April 25
Recent cases and proposed legislation reveal decreasing deference to agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations.
Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator (D-Mass.) | Tuesday, June 14
The right regulatory reforms can level the playing field between the public and powerful corporate players.
Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator (D-R.I.) | Wednesday, June 15
It is time for government to stop private interests from gaining improper inﬂuence over regulators.