The Trump Administration’s purported economic justification weakens the credibility of cost-benefit analysis.
The Trump Administration’s information request violates a longstanding federal law.
The Trump Administration’s embrace of a seldom-used law may undermine future regulatory efforts.
Earlier and less burdensome regulatory impact analyses would lead to more transparent, better regulatory decisions.
Combining better analysis with more meaningful participation will improve policy decisions.
Recommendations in National Academy of Sciences report may lead to smarter regulation of research.
The politics of regulatory reform is much more about politics than it is about regulation.
Both critics and defenders overstate true role of cost-benefit analysis in rulemaking
My recent ACUS report presents three conclusions to frame proposed improvements.
Empirical research reveals stronger benefit-cost analysis during less political rulemakings.
Increased regulatory action under Obama means that OIRA has more regulations to review.
Judicial review of benefit-cost analysis is no cure-all.