Setting a regulatory budget at a cost of zero ignores evidence of regulation’s high return on investment.
The latest Economic Report of the President highlights the importance of studying cumulative regulatory costs.
Scholars explore whether the benefits of the Clean Water Act justify its costs.
Regulatory action should be based on accurate estimates of regulatory benefits and costs.
Retrospective regulatory review should concentrate not only on reducing costs but also on creating benefits, like improving societal well-being.
The deregulatory agenda should be replaced with a regulatory improvement agenda.
Comparative study suggests deregulatory policy is stronger as a political symbol than an economic stimulus.
Data show that more stringent building codes deliver benefits greatly exceeding their costs.
Rail safety can be improved by realigning industry and regulatory goals.
Scholars evaluate the viability of adjusting regulations to accommodate changes in economic conditions.
Under President Trump’s executive order, the benefits of new regulations will play no role in regulatory decision-making.
As Trump takes aim at regulation, Canada’s experience with regulatory budgeting offers a possible template.