The study of the politics of regulation has followed two distinct paths in recent years. “New institutionalism” research has focused primarily on the policy-making process, particularly the interplay between regulators (who implement policy) and their political principals (who attempt to control regulators' activity). In contrast, “new governance” scholarship has focused on strategies other than traditional “command-and-control” regulation that can encourage compliance with socially valued norms of behavior. Although these two lines of research approach highly distinct facets of regulation and have developed largely independently of each other, they exhibit a generally unacknowledged and extensive overlap in their theoretical structure and associated results. In this article, we compare these two approaches to regulatory politics. For each, we discuss how the interactions of key actors are conceptualized, consider the types of regulatory mechanisms used to manage behavior, and examine the breadth of outcomes that flow from these controls. We suggest that greater acknowledgment of the commonalities in the two approaches can advance each approach, even if they continue to be pursued separately, and can also help generate important synthetic avenues for further research.

Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers. We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers.1.Core problem: Determine whether the RIA identifies the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address.2.Alternatives: Look for an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives.3.Baseline: Check whether the RIA presents a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured.4.Increments: Evaluate whether totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs.5.Uncertainty: Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty, and ask what effect key assumptions, data, and models have on those estimates.6.Transparency: Look for transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs.7.Benefits: Examine how projected benefits relate to stated objectives.8.Costs: Understand what costs are included.9.Distribution: Consider how benefits and costs are distributed.10.Symmetrical treatment: Ensure that benefits and costs are presented symmetrically.

Behavioral public administration (BPA) research aspires not only to draw on developments in behavioral science but also, importantly, to address central themes in public administration. By focusing a symposium on bureaucratic red tape, administrative burden, and regulation, we encouraged BPA scholarship to engage with fundamental public administration topics that are also relevant for the broader literature on organizations and management. Indeed, the symposium contributions demonstrate how BPA can better meld the behavioral science and public administration literatures. They expand on existing conceptions of BPA, with respect to both methodology and topical focus, and provide a basis for demarcating what might and might not be usefully described as BPA. The symposium contributions provide a blueprint for how BPA research might usefully evolve and the introduction offers a philosophical reflection on the future development of BPA and behavioral science. Symposium DevelopmentThis PAR symposium is the result of an open, inclusive, and rigorous process, originating with a widely publicized call for papers. Approximately 40 papers were presented at a two-day conference on