Assessing the Rationale for the U.S. EPA’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science” Rule

IF 7.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1093/reep/rez017
Madison E. Condon, Michael A. Livermore, J. Shrader
{"title":"Assessing the Rationale for the U.S. EPA’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science” Rule","authors":"Madison E. Condon, Michael A. Livermore, J. Shrader","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a new policy that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that rely on studies whose underlying data are not publicly available. While the EPA claims it is pursuing this policy in the interest of transparency, we argue that such a prohibition would greatly hinder, rather than help, the rulemaking process and would likely result in undesirable regulatory outcomes that fail to maximize economic welfare. This policy brief argues that a good faith effort to encourage data availability should focus on forward-looking incentives for transparency rather than the exclusion of a whole class of studies, and that weighting older studies based on their evidentiary value is preferable to removing valuable information from agency consideration.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez017","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a new policy that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that rely on studies whose underlying data are not publicly available. While the EPA claims it is pursuing this policy in the interest of transparency, we argue that such a prohibition would greatly hinder, rather than help, the rulemaking process and would likely result in undesirable regulatory outcomes that fail to maximize economic welfare. This policy brief argues that a good faith effort to encourage data availability should focus on forward-looking incentives for transparency rather than the exclusion of a whole class of studies, and that weighting older studies based on their evidentiary value is preferable to removing valuable information from agency consideration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估美国环保局提出的“加强监管科学透明度”规则的理由
美国环境保护局(EPA)正在考虑一项新政策,禁止该机构发布依赖于基础数据未公开的研究的法规。虽然环保局声称其推行这项政策是为了提高透明度,但我们认为,这样的禁令将极大地阻碍而不是帮助规则制定过程,并可能导致不良的监管结果,无法最大限度地提高经济福利。本政策简报认为,鼓励数据可用性的善意努力应侧重于透明度的前瞻性激励,而不是排除一整类研究,并且根据证据价值对旧研究进行加权比从机构考虑中删除有价值的信息更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy fills the gap between traditional academic journals and the general interest press by providing a widely accessible yet scholarly source for the latest thinking on environmental economics and related policy. The Review publishes symposia, articles, and regular features that contribute to one or more of the following goals: •to identify and synthesize lessons learned from recent and ongoing environmental economics research; •to provide economic analysis of environmental policy issues; •to promote the sharing of ideas and perspectives among the various sub-fields of environmental economics;
期刊最新文献
How Effective Are Secondary Interventions at Improving Health Outcomes In Children Exposed to Lead in Early Childhood? Environmental and Natural Resource Economics and Systemic Racism The Fiscal Implications of the US Transition Away from Fossil Fuels What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Degradation? An Updated Meta-analysis Climate Change, Epidemics, and Inequality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1