Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v8y2005i2p473-508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the US and Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Robert W. Hahn
  • Robert E. Litan
Abstract
This paper reviews the US and European experiences with regulatory oversight and the use of formal tools to analyze regulation. We conclude that the US and Europe have made some progress in improving regulatory analysis and oversight, but they can do much more. We offer six recommendations for improving the quality and transparency of regulatory oversight and analysis: three recommendations for the United States and three for Europe. For the US, we suggest that: 1) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) apply its in-house expertise to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulations; 2) Congress pass a law requiring that all federal regulatory agencies submit annual cost and benefit estimates of major regulations to OMB; and 3) OMB issue a scorecard assessing the overall quality of regulation and ask the agencies to complete a scorecard for each major regulation. For Europe, we suggest that: 1) The European Union (EU) pass a directive specifying that the primary objective of regulation is to maximize net benefits; 2) The EU create a strong centralized regulatory oversight unit to help evaluate regulatory proposals; and 3) The EU, as well as each member state, create a structure that is balanced, which promotes efficient regulation and discourages inefficient or ineffective regulation. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert W. Hahn & Robert E. Litan, 2005. "Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the US and Europe," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 473-508, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:8:y:2005:i:2:p:473-508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Djankov, Simeon & Luksic, Igor & Zhang, Eva, 2022. "Technology as deregulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118882, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:1065-1081 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Beat Bernet, 2005. "Towards an Economic Analysis of Financial Markets Regulation?," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 19(3), pages 313-322, October.
    4. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    5. Cave, Jonathan & Gibson, Stephen, 2023. "Primary and secondary legislation – assessing the impacts of rules for making rules," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1486, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Oana - Catalina Tapurica & Florin TACHE, 2011. "Quantifying Social Objectives Aiming Pollution Control – An Economic Perspective Upon Strategic Management And Project Management," Review of General Management, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Management Brasov, vol. 14(2), pages 130-138, November.
    7. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    8. Laura Cavallo & Giuseppe Coco & Mario Martelli, 2009. "Evaluating administrative burdens through SCM: some indications from the Italian experience," SERIES 0023, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza - Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro", revised Apr 2009.
    9. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8324 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Patrick A. McLaughlin & Casey B. Mulligan, 2020. "Three Myths about Federal Regulation," NBER Working Papers 27233, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence‐Based Policy‐Making or Policy‐Based Evidence‐Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 1065-1081, September.
    12. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8309 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Patrick Messerlin, 2006. "Europe after the 'no' votes : mapping a new economic path," Post-Print hal-00973109, HAL.
    15. Patrick Messerlin, 2004. "Problems of transposition and Members States "screening" process and timetable," Working Papers hal-00973081, HAL.
    16. Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin, 2012. "The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 855-880, May.
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8324 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8309 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Stuart Shapiro, 2011. "Defragmenting the Regulatory Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 893-901, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:8:y:2005:i:2:p:473-508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.