Three Misconceptions about Federal Regulation

Patrick A. McLaughlin and Casey B. Mulligan

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2022, vol. 13, issue 3, 287-309

Abstract: Three common misconceptions persist about federal regulations. The first misconception is that most new regulations concern the environment, but in fact, only a small minority of regulatory flows are environmental. The second misconception is that regulators offer reasonable justifications and quantitative evidence for the majority of regulations. However, quantitative estimates rarely appear in published rules, negating the impression given by executive orders and Office of Management and Budget guidance, which require cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and clearly articulate sound economic principles for conducting CBA. Environmental rules have relatively higher-quality CBAs, at least by the standards of other federal rules. The third misconception, which is particularly relevant to the historic regulations promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that regulatory costs are primarily clerical, rather than opportunity or resource costs.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:13:y:2022:i:3:p:287-309_3

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().