Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

Recent Projects

Viewing recent projects in Jobs and Regulation
  • Public Comments

    Comments on Regulatory Impacts Draft Report to Congress

    April 6, 2018

    The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) annual reports to Congress not only compile all the significant benefits and costs of federal regulations, but they also offer federal agencies and academics an up-to-date summary of the literature on key practices in regulatory impact analysis. As such, OMB’s annual reports should reflect the most comprehensive syntheses of the legal and economic literature on these analytical practices. Our comments on OMB’s draft report for 2017 propose two additions to its summaries of the literature on job impact analysis and on co-benefits analysis

    Read more

  • Academic Articles/Working Papers

    Regulation and Distribution

    March 2, 2018

    Most regulations seek to improve social welfare, but maximizing overall welfare may not help or protect all groups evenly. Many economists suggest handling unequal regulatory effects through the tax system. But some harms—like the disproportionately high environmental pollution felt by poor and minority communities and loss of the employment base in rural communities due to shifts in the economy—cannot be addressed by monetary compensation alone.

    A new article by Richard Revesz offers a blueprint for establishing a standing, broadly constituted interagency body charged with addressing serious negative consequences of regulatory measures on particular groups. Highlighting past ineffective approaches to addressing distributional concerns in environmental justice and coal miner compensation, the article also gives examples of effective executive action for helping displaced coal miners and addressing the costs of climate change.

    Read more

  • Court Filings

    Policy Integrity Brief Cited in Housing Rule Decision

    December 23, 2017

    In a decision ordering the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement a fair housing rule that the Trump administration sought to delay, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia cited Policy Integrity’s amicus brief in the case. The Small Area Fair Market Rent rule, finalized under President Obama, seeks to give low-income families greater access to housing in higher-rent neighborhoods and break up areas of concentrated poverty. Our brief argued that, in suspending the rule’s implementation for two years, HUD violated principles of administrative law by disregarding economic impacts and failing to seek public comment. Judge Howell found that HUD’s decision to delay the rule exceeded the agency’s legal authority and that the reasons it gave for doing so were arbitrary and capricious. She ordered HUD to implement the rule by January 1, 2018.

    Read more

  • News

    ACUS Adopts Recommendations on Marketable Permits

    December 14, 2017

    The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency that recommends improvements to government processes and procedures, recently approved a set of recommendations from Policy Integrity’s Jason Schwartz concerning marketable permits. Marketable permits, in the appropriate context, are a powerful tool for achieving policy objectives more efficiently, by letting market participants buy and sell compliance obligations. But like all markets, permit markets require proper oversight to prevent market manipulation. The new recommendations adopted by ACUS provide agencies with best practices on structuring and overseeing marketable permit programs.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Reconsideration of GHG Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles - Comments

    October 10, 2017

    In August, Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced their intentions to reconsider greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2022-2025. Our comments show that the employment effects from the standards are likely to be small, and we provide details on the short comings and biases of industry analyses that purport to show large employment effects. In contrast, the comments explain that the standards will help reduce numerous externalities, resulting in large welfare gains for consumers and the creation of valuable environmental benefits.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Public Comments on Regulatory Review (CFTC, CPSC, Department of Education, PBGC, USDA)

    October 4, 2017

    Many federal agencies are requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Public Comments on Regulatory Review (HUD, MCSAC, FMC, NOAA, Coast Guard)

    July 7, 2017

    Many federal agencies are requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments to EPA on Evaluating Existing Regulations

    May 15, 2017

    We recently submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regarding its obligation to evaluate existing regulations and identify some for repeal, replacement, or modification under Executive Order 13,777. Our comments are meant to ensure that EPA stays focused on its objective to identify outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or net-costly regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification and does not prioritize recently promulgated and overwhelmingly cost-benefit justified rules, some of which have been targeted by industry commenters.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Department of Commerce – Comments on Manufacturing and Regulation

    April 11, 2017

    We recently submitted comments to the Department of Commerce in response to its request for information on the impact of federal regulations on domestic manufacturing. The DOC requested comments on ideas for retrospective review of permitting and regulatory requirements, with a focus on repealing existing “burdensome” requirements. The agency also sought information about the potential adverse impacts of regulations on manufacturing.

    Read more

  • Issue Briefs

    Does Environmental Regulation Kill or Create Jobs?

    February 27, 2017

    Government regulation and deregulation are often framed as extensions of employment policy. Advocates of all stripes portray environmental regulation either as “killing” jobs or as the primary driver behind “green job” growth. This misleading framing is not supported by economic theory or evidence, and it distracts from policies that could actually create economic security for workers in the U.S. economy. Job impact models provide limited economic context and are easily manipulated; these limitations should be considered in any debates about regulation and jobs.

    Our issue brief on Jobs and Environmental Regulation addresses rhetoric on “job-killing regulations,” describing the lack of consistent evidence that regulations lead to long-term changes in the unemployment rate. It also provides information on how to analyze claims about job impacts.

    Read more