Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1996, vol. 12, issue 2, 376-407
This article develops a framework to understand the factors to which regulatory agencies respond and examines how these factors may influence agency decision-making. The model shows how either changing feedback from constituents or changing regulatory costs can alter the trade-offs facing the agency and hence create opportunities for substitution among different agency actions. This framework is used to explain the changing portfolio of FDA enforcement actions between 1972-92. Results indicate that changing constituent and political feedback is the reason for the observed policy change. Specifically, budget reductions and increasing industry demand for product approval led the FDA to reduce monitoring and substitute less resource-intensive enforcement, namely recalls, for more resource-intensive enforcement. Results also show that increasing numbers of adverse drug reaction reports from consumers and physicians enabled the agency to increase the efficiency of its inspections policy and to ultimately reduce its use of inspections. Copyright 1996 by Oxford University Press.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11) Track citations by RSS feed
There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:12:y:1996:i:2:p:376-407
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization is currently edited by Pablo T. Spiller
More articles in Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ) and Christopher F. Baum ().