The consequences of midnight regulations and other surges in regulatory activity

Regulation & Governance

Morrall

2012

Self Cite

This paper compares the quality and use of regulatory analysis accompanying economically significant regulations proposed by US executive branch agencies in 2008, 2009, and 2010. We find that the quality of regulatory analysis is generally low, but varies widely. Budget regulations, which define how the federal government will spend money or collect revenues, have much lower-quality analysis than other regulations. The Bush administration's "midnight" regulations finalized between Election Day and Inauguration Day, along with other regulations left for the Obama administration to finalize, tended to have lower-quality analysis. Most differences between the Bush and Obama administrations depend on agencies' policy preferences. More conservative agencies tended to produce better analysis in the Obama administration, and more liberal agencies tended to do so in the Bush administration. This suggests that agencies more central to an administration's policy priorities do not have to produce as good an analysis to get their regulations promulgated.

“…Even if politics weren't a factor, the sheer increase in volume of regulations may swamp the OIRA's review capacity (Brito & de Rugy 2009, pp. 184–189; McLaughlin 2011).…”

Section: Continuity Versus Change In Regulatory Impact Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ellig

Regulation & Governance

Morrall

2012

Self Cite

“…Crews () somewhat mitigates this drawback by focusing only on pages devoted to final rules (McLaughlin ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

RegData: A numerical database on industry‐specific regulations for all United States industries and federal regulations, 1997–2012

Al‐Ubaydli

Regulation & Governance

2015

Self Cite

174

We introduce RegData, formerly known as the Industry-specific Regulatory Constraint Database. RegData annually quantifies federal regulations by industry and regulatory agency for all federal regulations from 1997-2012. The quantification of regulations at the industry level for all industries is without precedent. RegData measures regulation for industries at the two, three, and four-digit levels of the North American Industry Classification System. We created this database using text analysis to count binding constraints in the wording of regulations, as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and to measure the applicability of regulatory text to different industries. We validate our measures of regulation by examining known episodes of regulatory growth and deregulation, as well as by comparing our measures to an existing, cross-sectional measure of regulation. Researchers can use this database to study the determinants of industry regulations and to study regulations' effects on a massive array of dependent variables, both across industries and time.JEL codes: K2, L5, N4, Y1

“…McLaughlin, for example, finds that “midnight” regulations issued late in an outgoing administration's term receive shorter review at OIRA. ( 53 ) McLaughlin and Ellig report that midnight regulations, transfer regulations, and regulations with statutory deadlines all have lower quality analysis, and the latter two types of regulations also receive shorter review times at OIRA. ( 54 ) This suggests that the quality of analysis varies systematically with institutional factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008

Ellig

2011

Risk Analysis

Self Cite

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.