title: The quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008.
abstract: 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.
authors: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA. jellig@gmu.edu
authors: Jerry
authors: J
authors: Ellig
authors: Patrick A
authors: PA
authors: McLaughlin
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006077:Government Agencies; D007255:Information Services; D014481:United States