Insight
March 8, 2017
A Library for Retrospective Review
There are plenty of prospective estimates in the regulatory arena. A proposed regulation could cost $10 billion annually and destroy 300,000 jobs, claims often made by critics of a rule. Alternatively, the same rule could save the economy $40 billion annually and actually generate 300,000 new jobs. Obviously, such claims made about an identical rule are paradoxical and someone must be wrong.
Rarely is there ever an examination years later to determine who was right and who was wrong. This project (“A Library for Retrospective Review”) by the American Action Forum (AAF) aims to collect and publicize retrospective regulatory research. Whether from a federal agency, academic publication, progressive or conservative group, this project endeavors to collect the most recent studies in an effort to learn more about retrospective review and the effects of regulation overall.
Determining the actual effects of a particular standard is often difficult. Finding relevant data and establishing a counter-factual are just some of the research hurdles involved. Often, agencies make it difficult to measure the ex post impact of a regulation. Some analysts rely on statistical inference and data analysis to determine a range of possible outcomes from a past policy. With roughly 80 major rules annually, retrospective review is rare, but there are plenty of recent examples to demonstrate how the process can inform policymakers and the broader research community.
Before issuance of President Trump’s Executive Order 13,771 implementing a regulatory budget (one-in, two-out), there was little demand for retrospective review. As Richard Morgenstern of Resources for the Future observed after conducting nine retrospective case studies, “The lack of funding for retrospective assessments, both inside and outside of government, is clearly a barrier to further progress.” However, now agencies and outside researchers must conduct retrospective review to determine which old rules need to be amended. Although this will pose some initial challenges for agencies, they have performed this work in the past and the table below contains an extensive list of past reviews. The findings from the compiled research below could serve as a resource for regulators scouring the Code of Federal Regulations to find regulatory offsets. Ideally, the combined work of the federal government and independent analysts will continue to add to our understanding of federal regulation; what are past effective approaches and what doesn’t work in the regulatory arena? A well-functioning regulatory budget will require a massive investment in retrospective review, but the results to date reveal this undertaking is possible.
The list below is by no means exhaustive of every recent retrospective study, but it is meant to be. Interested parties are encouraged to submit additional studies to Sam Batkins or [email protected] with the title, “Retrospective Review.” AAF will promptly add relevant research to the list.
