The Quality and Use of
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the United States
James Broughel
Program Manager, Regulatory Studies Program
Mercatus Center at George Mason University
Arlington, Virginia USA
www.mercatus.org/reportcard
Why Are We Doing This Project?
1) Agency Accountability
2) Better Analysis = Better Rules
3) Academic Research
4) Stakeholder Participation
Project Description
1) 12 criteria from E.O. 12866 and Circular A-4
2) Proposed “economically significant” regulations
3) Team of economists
4) Read RIA and entire Federal Register preamble
5) Qualitative evaluation with numerical scores
6) 2008 to present
Scoring Criteria - Openness
•
•
•
•
Accessibility
Data documentation
Research documentation
Clarity
Scoring Criteria - Analysis
•
•
•
•
Systemic problem/Market Failure
Outcome definition
Alternatives
Benefit-Cost
Scoring Criteria - Use
•
•
•
•
Evidence of use of analysis
Cognizance of net benefits
Goals and measures
Data for retrospective analysis
Evaluation Scale
5
Complete analysis of all or almost all
aspects, with one or more “best
practices”
4
Reasonably thorough analysis of
most aspects and/or shows at least
one "best practice"
3
Reasonably thorough analysis of
some aspects
2
Some relevant discussion with some
documentation of analysis
1
Perfunctory statement with little
explanation or documentation
0
Little or no relevant content
12 criteria
0-5 points each
Total Score: 0-60 points
Highest Possible Score = 60 points
Best score ever:
48/60 points (80%)
Average 2008-12:
28/60 points (47%)
Report Card findings
• Little difference in average quality of analysis between
administrations
• Lower-quality analysis comes from agencies whose policy
preferences (ideologies) are closer to the administration’s
• “Midnight” regulations and regulations left for the next
administration to finalize have worse analysis
• Agencies are more likely to claim they used an analysis if its
quality is higher
Average Scores by criterion (2008-2012)
Criteria
Score*
Outcome definition
3.2
Alternatives
2.8
Some use of analysis
2.2
Systemic problem
2.2
Retrospective data
1.6
Goals and measures
1.3
* Scores out of 5 possible points
Outcomes
• Analysis cited in peer reviewed literature.
• Regulation & Governance, Risk Analysis
• Cited in legislation
• The Regulatory Accountability Act
• Positive feedback on project has led to other projects
exploring costs of regulation, and growth of regulation
over time
• Cost Calculator, RegData