The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008

Abstract

This article assesses the quality and apparent use of regulatory analysis for economically significant regulations proposed by federal agencies in 2008. A nine-member research team used a six-point (0-5) scale to evaluate regulatory analyses according to criteria drawn from Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. Principal findings include: (1) the average quality of regulatory analysis, though not high, is somewhat better than previous regulatory scorecards have shown; (2) quality varies widely; (3) biggest strengths are accessibility and clarity; (4) biggest weaknesses are analysis of the systemic problem and retrospective analysis; (5) budget or "transfer" regulations usually receive low-quality analysis; (6) a minority of the regulations contain evidence that the agency used the analysis in significant decisions; (7) quality of analysis is positively correlated with the apparent use of the analysis in regulatory decisions; and (8) greater diffusion of best practices could significantly improve the overall quality of regulatory analysis.

Continuity, change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations

“…Following Ellig and McLaughlin (2012), we use a scoring system that evaluates the quality and apparent use of regulatory analysis for economically significant regulations proposed in 2008, 2009, and 2010. This approach allows us to evaluate a wide variety of regulations – economic, environmental, safety, civil rights, security, and budget – over multiple years and two administrations.…”

“…In several cases, a criterion actually consists of a series of questions, all of which are scored from zero to five and then averaged to produce a score for the criterion. All of these scoring criteria and their component questions are explained in further detail in Ellig and McLaughlin (2012).…”

“…A casual glance at the Type of Regulation variables confirms some findings in existing literature on the quality of regulatory analysis. For example, budget regulations typically have much lower‐quality analysis (Posner 2003; Ellig & McLaughlin 2012). In our sample, the mean total of the 39 budget regulations equals 19.6, whereas the mean total of all 111 regulations in the sample is 27.8.…”

“…4 4 Ellig and McLaughlin (2012) evaluate 45 economically significant proposed regulations from 2008, which includes all of the regulations for which they could find RIAs. Our sample includes 47 because two additional RIAs became available after their analysis was performed. …”

The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience

“…Belcore and Ellig (2009) use a 30 point scale to evaluate homeland security regulations. In a working paper, Ellig and McLaughin (2010) use a 60 point scale to evaluate proposed regulations from all agencies in 2008. In a recent conference paper Ellig and Morrall (2010) update that paper to include all 87 “economically significant” rules proposed in 2008 and 2009.…”