Suchergebnisse

Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thorough economic analysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branch regulations. Such reforms are intended to improve the quality of economic analysis agencies produce when they issue major regulations. We employ newly gathered data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likely effects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality of agencies' regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Our results suggest that greater use of advance notices of proposed rulemakings for major regulations, advance consultation with regulated entities, use of advisory committees, and expansion of OIRA's resources and role would improve the quality of RIAs. They also suggest pre-proposal public meetings with stakeholders are associated with lower quality analysis.

"A-95." ; "February 1984." ; "A commission report." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Federal regulation is a basic tool of government. Agencies issue thousands of rules and regulations each year to achieve goals such as ensuring that workplaces, air travel, and foods are safe; that the nation's air, water and land are not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes are collected. The costs of these regulations are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the benefits estimates are even higher. Over the past 25 years, a variety of congressional and presidential regulatory reform initiatives have been instituted to refine the federal regulatory process. This testimony discusses findings from the large number of GAO reports and testimonies prepared at the request of Congress to review the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives. Specifically, GAO discusses common strengths and weaknesses of existing reform initiatives that its work has identified. GAO also addresses some general opportunities to reexamine and refine existing initiatives and the federal regulatory process to make them more effective. GAO's prior reports and testimonies contain a variety of recommendations to improve particular reform initiatives and aspects of the regulatory process."

After ten years of determined reform, Hungary has constructed the legal and policy frameworks consistent with market democracy, and is nearing completion of an historic economic transition. This challenging process required extensive regulation and institution building, as well as massive deregulation, and has generated significant economic benefits. Today, convergence with the EU and achievement of OECD best practices still represent daunting tasks. But in most areas, Hungary faces challenges much like those of other OECD countries in establishing the quality regulatory regimes needed to supp

While legislation tends to get more attention, the regulatory process within the executive branch is at the core of day-to-day democratic governance. Federal regulation and rule-making engages dozens of agencies and affects every American. The Biden-Harris administration acknowledged the centrality of the regulatory process with two actions on the President's first day in office. The first called for modernizing the regulatory review process, particularly the central oversight role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The second was an executive order calling on the federal government to support underserved communities and advance racial equity. These two initiatives together lay the groundwork for a reorientation and modernization of the regulatory process to move it in the direction of equity and justice.To understand the challenges to and advantages of a reformed regulatory review process, New America's Political Reform Program and the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government convened a group of academic experts from across the country to share their findings on the state of regulatory review and to identify alternative measures of not just the cost of regulations, but also the distributional impact of their costs and benefits. These experts specialize in administrative law, economic analysis, public participation, and regulatory review, and their work covers policy areas including patent law, healthcare, and environmental justice.This conversation focused first on the changes that could be made within the framework of cost-benefit analysis, and then on reforms that would go beyond cost-benefit to new modes of analysis. Much of the discussion centered around ensuring that regulations appropriately benefit and do not harm vulnerable or marginalized communities.

Denmark's large welfare state and its open market economy have successfully delivered relatively high standards of living. Danish regulatory reform has proceeded with many pragmatic steps that have contributed to solid economic performance, management of economic and social adjustment to changing conditions, and improved efficiency of government services. However, sheltered sectors, including service industries, still suffer from co-operation and price fixing, contributing to high consumer prices. The competition regime is weaker than in many other countries, and so are regulatory regimes in a

At the end of 1997, Korea suffered one of the worst economic crises ever experienced by an OECD country. An ambitious programme of regulatory, financial, and structural reforms, among the most far-reaching efforts at reform of regulation undertaken in OECD countries, was key to the strong economic recovery in 1999 and 2000. This programme not only stabilised the crisis, but also helped recreate the foundations for future sustainable growth. The Korean experience can be useful to other countries seeking to boost market-led growth. Reforms now are moving Korea from a highly interventionist and a

The Bush administration has implemented more reforms to the regulatory process than any of its predecessors. These reforms are often stereotyped as anti‐regulatory. This article examines the reforms as a whole and asks which interests have been empowered by the Bush administration regulatory reforms. I believe this method is a more effective way of assessing the impact of the reforms. I find that, in addition to adding potential costs to the regulatory process, the reforms are likely to empower powerful interest groups and the presidency. Whether the impact of these reforms is pro‐regulation or anti‐regulation will depend on how a future administration more dedicated to regulatory protections uses them. I also lay out a research agenda to better empirically assess the impact of these regulatory reforms.