Blockchain Papers

Myriam Senn

No abstract is available for this record.

Catherine O’Neill

This chapter critiques environmental agencies' use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the context of a concrete case study: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recent regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities under the Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). It identifies seven issues for regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that the CAMR brings to the fore. Rather than informing the decisionmaking process, the CAMR RIA served to obscure the range and contours of the regulatory options on the table. Rather than providing a neutral tally of are obviously and of the rule, the CAMR RIA enlisted value judgments to assign the impacts of mercury contamination to one side of the ledger or the other. Rather than permitting a complete accounting of these impacts, the CAMR RIA provided an accounting that was partial - in both senses of the term. Rather than laying bare the answer to the question what is at stake, for whom?, the CAMR RIA assessed only those impacts that had been monetized. Its bottom line, moreover, told us nothing about how the costs and benefits would be distributed. Rather than affording enhanced oversight by elected officials and the public, the CAMR RIA dazzled with detail but often obfuscated the considerations relevant to EPA's decision. Finally, rather than helping EPA satisfy its legal mandates, the CAMR RIA provided information that was unconnected to the relevant Clean Air Act provisions, treaties with the fishing tribes, and other legal obligations that constrained EPA's decision. Having identified these shortcomings, the chapter closes with recommendations for reforming regulatory impact analysis - suggestions that echo other recent efforts to envision a more pragmatic orientation for analysis of health, safety, and environmental regulations.

Luiz Carlos Bresser‐Pereira

Abstract Executive and regulatory agencies are decentralized state organizations that implement policies. When the law clearly defines the policy, we have a state policy; when it leaves the precise definition to the incumbent administration, we have a government policy. Regulatory agencies are supposed to execute state policies and be more autonomous from the administration, whereas executive agencies will be less autonomous politically but equally independent in administrative terms. Policies introduced by executive agencies are supposed to change the moment that the opposition political party or political coalition wins an election and a new administration begins, whereas the policies introduced by regulatory policies do not change so easily. Government policies may be changed either by the parliament or by the executive, whereas state policies may be changed only by the parliament. Executive agencies are supposed to have administrative autonomy, regulatory agencies, decision autonomy, but policies are not or should not be their responsibility.

Donald Scherer

While industrialists are discovering the hidden costs of minimal compliance with environmental regulation, environmentalists assert that EPA regulations contain too many loopholes. Since government regulation pleases neither environmentalists nor the regulated industries, we have to think in new directions. Can financing alternative technology be superior to monitoring pollution? Can local communities play a role in creating cohesion out of decentralization? What are the best new strategies both on the level of local communities and alternative technologies?

Sally S. Simpson, Christopher S. Koper

No abstract is available for this record.