Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Jobs and Regulation
  • Do Fewer Regulations Mean More Jobs?

    May 18, 2012 – Fast Company

    Last week, the Western Energy Alliance released a report (PDF) claiming 120,905 jobs could be created if the U.S. government would just make it easier to drill for gas on public lands. There is no shortage of papers like this one, but there is a serious shortage of scrutiny of their results.

    In this case, as with many others, the suggestion seems to be that a certain number of jobs could be gained by a policy change—that the nation’s economy will be 120,905 jobs richer and that 120,905 people who currently do not have a job will now be employed.

    If only it were that easy. But it’s not, and it is misleading to suggest that it is.

  • “Job-killing” environmental regulation: Industry’s trump card or the Joker?

    May 1, 2012 – NRDC Switchboard

    This blog integrates material from recent analyses by the Institute for Policy Integrity and Economic Policy Institute (click here, here, and here) showing why “job-killing regulation” claims are bad economics and factually incorrect (click here for a broader discussion of the role of regulation in a well functioning economy).

  • New rules

    April 29, 2012 – Akron Beacon Journal

    No surprise that many people recently scratched their heads when the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity argued that two new EPA rules for curbing power plant emissions would trigger 1.4 million job losses, and the Political Economy Research Institute countered that the rules actually would generate 1.4 million jobs. Which calculation is right? The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law cited the colliding evaluations in its recent report, “The Regulatory Red Herring.” Thankfully, it also brought needed perspective to the discussion.

  • Use Of Phrase ‘Job Killing Regulations’ Increases 17,550% In Newspapers Since 2007

    April 24, 2012 – Climate Progress

    Between 2007 and 2011, use of the phrase “job-killing regulations” in U.S. newspapers increased by 17,550%. Recently, committees of the 112th U.S. House of Representatives convened twenty hearings in its first twenty days that explored the link between regulations and the country’s job numbers. Protections for our public health and environment in particular have been on the receiving end of this barrage.

    Claims that regulations have a significant impact on American employment call for careful scrutiny. Because they are repeated so often, the idea that regulations “kill jobs” can start to sound true, or at least “truthy.” But when you scratch the surface of these claims, too often they are based more on ideology than sound methodology.

  • Bad science around ‘job-killing regulations’

    April 24, 2012 – Washington Post

    A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law attempts to bring some economic rationality to the regulatory discourse — however quixotic that might be in the current political environment, not to mention in a presidential election year.

    The report is titled “The Regulatory Red Herring: The Role of Job Impact Analyses in Environmental Policy Debates.” Yet somewhat surprisingly, Michael Livermore, the institute’s executive director, does not oppose factoring job impact into the cost-benefit analysis. Rather, he argues for adopting a more sophisticated approach than the prevalent knuckleheaded assumption — my words, not his — that increased regulation inevitably results in fewer jobs.

  • Institute for Policy Integrity’s Livermore says economic analyses of rules misleading

    April 24, 2012 – E&E TV

    Are economic analyses of U.S. EPA’s air regulations effective? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law, discusses a new report explaining why contradictory economic models can confuse the conversation and debate over air regulations. Livermore also discusses the impact of EPA’s latest round of oil and gas air regulations.

  • Cherrypicking the Evidence in the Energy Jobs Debate

    April 23, 2012 – National Geographic

    The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University looked at some of these job estimates in a recent report and concluded they varied widely depending on the economic model and data used. In addition, the institute said the limitations of these estimates are “inconsistently reported and too often ignored.” The differences are huge, ranging from losing more than a million jobs to gaining nearly that many.

    “In an advocacy context, job impact analyses can tell very different stories, often depending on the narrator,” the report said. The institute said there are estimates predicting everything from a 1.3 million job loss to a 723,000 job gain from the imposition of renewable energy standards, depending on the model. On EPA power plant regulations, sci-fi fans can choose from two different “mirror universes”: the rules would create or destroy 1.4 million jobs, depending on whether you believe the industry group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity or the Political Economy Research Institute.

  • Unearthing the Truth Behind Environmental Regulations

    April 22, 2012 – Forbes

    “These job impact analyses are extremely sensitive to data and model structure, but in policy discussions the underlying assumptions and limitations of models are inconsistently reported and too often ignored,” says New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which released a report called “The Regulatory Red Herring.”

  • Gauging the job impact of environmental regulations

    April 6, 2012 – Marketplace

    You hear a lot these days about government regulations as “job-killers.” Well, a new study out of NYU is urging the EPA to consider jobs when it proposes new environmental rules. That literally means factoring in job loss or job creation estimates into the cost/benefit analysis that comes with each of these new regulations. We speak with Michael Livermore, the director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law about the study.

  • Study examines role of jobs in environmental policy debate

    April 4, 2012 – State Journal

    A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity examines the political practice of pitting environmental protection against jobs and economic growth.

    The study concludes that jobs gained or lost to environmental regulation warrant further scrutiny or are often stated out of context.

    The report is critical of utilizing cost-benefit analysis in way that is inaccurate, misleading or otherwise “not helpful in debates over environmental protections.