Loading…
Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics
This Article examines the recent history and the future of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article argues that, considering both philosophical and practical perspectives, lifesaving regulation informed by benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has compelling advantages compared to regulation informed by the...
Saved in:
Published in: | University of Pennsylvania law review 2008-12, Vol.157 (2), p.395-540 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 540 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 395 |
container_title | University of Pennsylvania law review |
container_volume | 157 |
creator | Graham, John D. |
description | This Article examines the recent history and the future of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article argues that, considering both philosophical and practical perspectives, lifesaving regulation informed by benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has compelling advantages compared to regulation informed by the main alternatives to BCA. Contrary to the popular belief that BCA exerts only an antiregulation influence, I show, based on firsthand experience in the White House from 2001 to 2006, that BCA is also an influential tool in protecting or advancing valuable lifesaving rules, especially in a pro-business Republican administration. Various criticisms of BCA that are common in the legal literature are shown to be unconvincing: the tool's alleged immorality when applied to lifesaving situations, its supposed indeterminacy due to conceptual and empirical shortcomings, and the alleged biases in the way benefits and costs are computed. But the Article also pinpoints problems in the benefit-cost state, and opportunities far improvement in the process of lifesaving regulation. Innovations in analytic practice, coupled with improvements in the design of regulatory systems, are proposed to strengthen the efficiency and fairness of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article's suggestions provide a menu of promising reforms for consideration by the new administration and the new Congress as they take office in January 2009. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_196940856</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A193141134</galeid><jstor_id>40380248</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A193141134</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g309t-7dd36e89c3144d62ff8aae8c898c537fcdc1166d6847aa38d1d450c8e8bc92683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE9LxDAQxYMouK5-BKHouZI0aTo5Lsv6Bwoe1HOJSdrNsk3WJF3x2xtYL0KZw8Dj9-Y95gwtiGBVCTVtztECY0ZKIXBzia5i3GGMeU3EAtVv8mjdULT2aGKRtsFPw7ZY6dE6G1OQKetFK78L6XSxUd750ap4jS56uY_m5m8v0cfj5n39XLavTy_rVVsOFItUNlpTbkAoShjTvOp7kNKAAgEq1-qVVoRwrjmwRkoKmmhWYwUGPpWoONAlujvdPQT_NZmYup2fgsuRHRFcMAw1z9D9CRrk3nTW9T73VqONqlsRkaMJoSxT5Qw1GGeC3Htnepvlf_zDDJ9Hm_yBWcPtybCLyYfuEOwow0_HMAVcMaC_i9t2Uw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>196940856</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Graham, John D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Graham, John D.</creatorcontrib><description>This Article examines the recent history and the future of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article argues that, considering both philosophical and practical perspectives, lifesaving regulation informed by benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has compelling advantages compared to regulation informed by the main alternatives to BCA. Contrary to the popular belief that BCA exerts only an antiregulation influence, I show, based on firsthand experience in the White House from 2001 to 2006, that BCA is also an influential tool in protecting or advancing valuable lifesaving rules, especially in a pro-business Republican administration. Various criticisms of BCA that are common in the legal literature are shown to be unconvincing: the tool's alleged immorality when applied to lifesaving situations, its supposed indeterminacy due to conceptual and empirical shortcomings, and the alleged biases in the way benefits and costs are computed. But the Article also pinpoints problems in the benefit-cost state, and opportunities far improvement in the process of lifesaving regulation. Innovations in analytic practice, coupled with improvements in the design of regulatory systems, are proposed to strengthen the efficiency and fairness of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article's suggestions provide a menu of promising reforms for consideration by the new administration and the new Congress as they take office in January 2009.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0041-9907</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-8537</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Law School</publisher><subject>Administrative agencies ; Administrative law ; Administrative procedure ; Benefit cost analysis ; Commercial regulation ; Cost benefit analysis ; Cost estimates ; Economic aspects ; Economic regulation ; Environmental agencies ; Environmental regulation ; Government regulation ; Industrial regulation ; Public administration ; Regulation ; Regulatory reform ; Welfare</subject><ispartof>University of Pennsylvania law review, 2008-12, Vol.157 (2), p.395-540</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2008 University of Pennsylvania Law Review</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 University of Pennsylvania, Law School</rights><rights>Copyright University of Pennsylvania Law School Dec 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40380248$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40380248$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Graham, John D.</creatorcontrib><title>Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics</title><title>University of Pennsylvania law review</title><description>This Article examines the recent history and the future of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article argues that, considering both philosophical and practical perspectives, lifesaving regulation informed by benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has compelling advantages compared to regulation informed by the main alternatives to BCA. Contrary to the popular belief that BCA exerts only an antiregulation influence, I show, based on firsthand experience in the White House from 2001 to 2006, that BCA is also an influential tool in protecting or advancing valuable lifesaving rules, especially in a pro-business Republican administration. Various criticisms of BCA that are common in the legal literature are shown to be unconvincing: the tool's alleged immorality when applied to lifesaving situations, its supposed indeterminacy due to conceptual and empirical shortcomings, and the alleged biases in the way benefits and costs are computed. But the Article also pinpoints problems in the benefit-cost state, and opportunities far improvement in the process of lifesaving regulation. Innovations in analytic practice, coupled with improvements in the design of regulatory systems, are proposed to strengthen the efficiency and fairness of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article's suggestions provide a menu of promising reforms for consideration by the new administration and the new Congress as they take office in January 2009.</description><subject>Administrative agencies</subject><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Administrative procedure</subject><subject>Benefit cost analysis</subject><subject>Commercial regulation</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Cost estimates</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economic regulation</subject><subject>Environmental agencies</subject><subject>Environmental regulation</subject><subject>Government regulation</subject><subject>Industrial regulation</subject><subject>Public administration</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Regulatory reform</subject><subject>Welfare</subject><issn>0041-9907</issn><issn>1942-8537</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkE9LxDAQxYMouK5-BKHouZI0aTo5Lsv6Bwoe1HOJSdrNsk3WJF3x2xtYL0KZw8Dj9-Y95gwtiGBVCTVtztECY0ZKIXBzia5i3GGMeU3EAtVv8mjdULT2aGKRtsFPw7ZY6dE6G1OQKetFK78L6XSxUd750ap4jS56uY_m5m8v0cfj5n39XLavTy_rVVsOFItUNlpTbkAoShjTvOp7kNKAAgEq1-qVVoRwrjmwRkoKmmhWYwUGPpWoONAlujvdPQT_NZmYup2fgsuRHRFcMAw1z9D9CRrk3nTW9T73VqONqlsRkaMJoSxT5Qw1GGeC3Htnepvlf_zDDJ9Hm_yBWcPtybCLyYfuEOwow0_HMAVcMaC_i9t2Uw</recordid><startdate>20081201</startdate><enddate>20081201</enddate><creator>Graham, John D.</creator><general>University of Pennsylvania Law School</general><general>University of Pennsylvania, Law School</general><scope>ILT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081201</creationdate><title>Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics</title><author>Graham, John D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g309t-7dd36e89c3144d62ff8aae8c898c537fcdc1166d6847aa38d1d450c8e8bc92683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Administrative agencies</topic><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Administrative procedure</topic><topic>Benefit cost analysis</topic><topic>Commercial regulation</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Cost estimates</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economic regulation</topic><topic>Environmental agencies</topic><topic>Environmental regulation</topic><topic>Government regulation</topic><topic>Industrial regulation</topic><topic>Public administration</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Regulatory reform</topic><topic>Welfare</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graham, John D.</creatorcontrib><collection>LegalTrac</collection><jtitle>University of Pennsylvania law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graham, John D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics</atitle><jtitle>University of Pennsylvania law review</jtitle><date>2008-12-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>157</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>395</spage><epage>540</epage><pages>395-540</pages><issn>0041-9907</issn><eissn>1942-8537</eissn><abstract>This Article examines the recent history and the future of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article argues that, considering both philosophical and practical perspectives, lifesaving regulation informed by benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has compelling advantages compared to regulation informed by the main alternatives to BCA. Contrary to the popular belief that BCA exerts only an antiregulation influence, I show, based on firsthand experience in the White House from 2001 to 2006, that BCA is also an influential tool in protecting or advancing valuable lifesaving rules, especially in a pro-business Republican administration. Various criticisms of BCA that are common in the legal literature are shown to be unconvincing: the tool's alleged immorality when applied to lifesaving situations, its supposed indeterminacy due to conceptual and empirical shortcomings, and the alleged biases in the way benefits and costs are computed. But the Article also pinpoints problems in the benefit-cost state, and opportunities far improvement in the process of lifesaving regulation. Innovations in analytic practice, coupled with improvements in the design of regulatory systems, are proposed to strengthen the efficiency and fairness of federal lifesaving regulation. The Article's suggestions provide a menu of promising reforms for consideration by the new administration and the new Congress as they take office in January 2009.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>University of Pennsylvania Law School</pub><tpages>146</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0041-9907 |
ispartof | University of Pennsylvania law review, 2008-12, Vol.157 (2), p.395-540 |
issn | 0041-9907 1942-8537 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_196940856 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Administrative agencies Administrative law Administrative procedure Benefit cost analysis Commercial regulation Cost benefit analysis Cost estimates Economic aspects Economic regulation Environmental agencies Environmental regulation Government regulation Industrial regulation Public administration Regulation Regulatory reform Welfare |
title | Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T13%3A41%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Saving%20Lives%20through%20Administrative%20Law%20and%20Economics&rft.jtitle=University%20of%20Pennsylvania%20law%20review&rft.au=Graham,%20John%20D.&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=157&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=395&rft.epage=540&rft.pages=395-540&rft.issn=0041-9907&rft.eissn=1942-8537&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA193141134%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g309t-7dd36e89c3144d62ff8aae8c898c537fcdc1166d6847aa38d1d450c8e8bc92683%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=196940856&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A193141134&rft_jstor_id=40380248&rfr_iscdi=true |