Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Independent regulatory commissions (2)
- Administrative law (1)
- Agency (1)
- Broken experimentation (1)
- Cost effectiveness (1)
-
- Empirical research evidence (1)
- Evidence based policy making (EBPM) (1)
- Government decision making (1)
- Law--Study and teaching (1)
- Medical economics (1)
- Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (1)
- Office of Management and Budget (1)
- Presidents (1)
- Public law (1)
- Public policy (Law) (1)
- Public welfare (1)
- Quality of life (1)
- Risk (1)
- Risk assessment (1)
- United States (1)
- Well-being (1)
- Yale Law and Policy Journal (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Administrative Law
Broken Experimentation, Sham Evidence-Based Policy, Kristen Underhill
Broken Experimentation, Sham Evidence-Based Policy, Kristen Underhill
Faculty Scholarship
Evidence-based policy is gaining attention, and legislation and agency regulation have been no exception to calls for greater uptake of research evidence. Indeed, current interest in “moneyball for government” is part of a long history of efforts to promote research-based decisions in government, from the U.S. Census to cost-benefit analysis. But although evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) is often both feasible and desirable, there are reasons to be skeptical of the capacity of EBPM in governmental decision-making. EBPM is itself bounded by limits on rationality, the capacity of science, the objectivity of science, and the authority we wish to give technocrats. Where …
Responding To Agency Avoidance Of Oira, Nina A. Mendelson, Jonathan B. Wiener
Responding To Agency Avoidance Of Oira, Nina A. Mendelson, Jonathan B. Wiener
Faculty Scholarship
Concerns have recently been raised that US federal agencies may sometimes avoid regulatory review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). In this article, we assess the seriousness of such potential avoidance, and we recommend a framework for evaluating potential responses. After summarizing the system of presidential regulatory oversight through OIRA review, we analyze the incentives for agencies to cooperate with or avoid OIRA. We identify a wider array of agency avoidance tactics than has past scholarship, and a wider array of corresponding response options available to OIRA, the President, Congress, and the courts. We argue …
Fear Assessment: Cost-Benefit Analysis And The Pricing Of Fear And Anxiety, Matthew D. Adler
Fear Assessment: Cost-Benefit Analysis And The Pricing Of Fear And Anxiety, Matthew D. Adler
Faculty Scholarship
Risk assessment is now a common feature of regulatory practice, but fear assessment is not. In particular, environmental, health and safety agencies such as EPA, FDA, OSHA, NHTSA, and CPSC, commonly count death, illness and injury as costs for purposes of cost-benefit analysis, but almost never incorporate fear, anxiety or other welfare-reducing mental states into the analysis. This is puzzling, since fear and anxiety are welfare setbacks, and since the very hazards regulated by these agencies - air or water pollutants, toxic waste dumps, food additives and contaminants, workplace toxins and safety threats, automobiles, dangerous consumer products, radiation, and so …
Legal Education And Public Policy, Lawrence G. Baxter
Legal Education And Public Policy, Lawrence G. Baxter
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.