About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

23 J.L. & Pol. 393 (2007)
Presidents and Process: A Comparison of the Regulatory Process under the Clinton and Bush (43) Administrations

handle is hein.journals/jlp23 and id is 401 raw text is: Presidents and Process: A Comparison of the Regulatory Process Under the Clinton and Bush (43) Administrations Stuart Shapiro* INTRODUCTION Debates over regulatory policy focus both on the substance of regulations and on the nature of the regulatory process. Despite the often strident nature of these debates, there are several propositions that generate widespread agreement. Few would argue that the substance of regulations has been dramatically different in the George W. Bush Administration than in that of Bill Clinton.' And while the merits of various aspects of the regulatory process are the subject of considerable debate, the vigor with which these debates are carried out2 is evidence of agreement that the process is important. Despite the perceived importance of the regulatory process in affecting regulatory substance, large-scale empirical examinations of the process are limited. In particular, we have little idea how the regulatory process varies with changes in regulatory substance. Does the process look very different in a presidential administration that has a pro-regulatory outlook than in one that favors deregulation? This article is a large-scale empirical examination of the role of procedural controls in the rulemaking process. I compare variables characterizing the regulatory process from analogous periods in the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. It is well documented that the regulatory preferences of these two presidents are quite different.3 Despite this, I find that the regulatory process is remarkably similar # Stuart Shapiro is an assistant professor of public policy at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Prior to working at Rutgers, he worked at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The author would like to thank Winstina Hughes and Andrew Cottrell for research assistance and Anne Gowen, Cary Coglianese, Steven Balla, Laura Langbein, John Morrall, and Sally Katzen for helpful comments on previous drafts of this work. See, e.g., CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS & OMB WATCH ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE SAFEGUARDS, SPECIAL INTEREST TAKEOVER: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE DISMANTLING OF PUBLIC SAFEGUARDS (2004). 2 See, e.g., Wendy E. Wagner, Importing Daubert to Administrative Agencies Through the Information Quality Act, 12 J.L. & POL'Y 589 (2004); John D. Graham, Managing the Regulatory State: The Experience of the Bush Administration, 33 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 953 (2006). 3 THOMAS 0. MCGARITY, SIDNEY A. SHAPIRO, RENA 1. STEINZOR, JOANNA GOGER & MARGARET CLUNE, CTR. FOR PROGRESSIVE REGULATION, TRUTH AND SCIENCE BETRAYED: THE CASE AGAINST THE INFORMATION QUALITY ACT (2005).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most