In the News

“It’s a kind of a thankless job,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.

“You’re almost guaranteed to have a lot of forces aligned against you and unhappy with you,” said Livermore, who called Shelanski a “balanced thinker” who understands the complex regulatory process.

“He is a sophisticated legal scholar who is up to date on the most recent research on regulatory economics, but also someone who has an inside view on the real challenges that agencies face,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University.

“The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy,” a new book by Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz, discusses what they consider the growing use of CBA outside of the United States, where it got its start as a tool for assessing regulations. Perhaps the most interesting part of the book concerns developing countries.

As Michael Livermore of the Institute for Policy Integrity, a group that favors cost-benefit analysis, argues: “the fact that cost-benefit analysis is brought in by the courts for financial reform in a way that is contentious, unclear, without a lot of guidance, and in a politically charged way, entrenches views on opposite sides of the debate.”

For its part, the S.E.C. has hired additional economists to scrutinize rules and published guidelines for evaluating regulations. “The S.E.C. is finally starting to figure it out,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School. “The new approach just might save Dodd-Frank.”

Cass Sunstein recently announced his departure from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and an acting director will occupy the post most likely until after Election Day. Whether President Obama gets another bite at the apple or Governor Romney gets a shot at the next appointment, there are certain tenets that should be adhered to when looking for a new OIRA director.

The potential of the retrospective review of rules adopted by federal agencies has been hailed by both the right and the left as a way to improve regulation and increase efficiency: by collecting information on what works and what does not, we can make better choices in the future. The Obama Administration has embraced this vision of retrospective review, but unfortunately, by focusing almost exclusively on cutting costs, it is walking back its commitment to use this tool in a balanced fashion.

President Obama has placed streamlining government bureaucracy among his priorities, saying he wants to “hunt down and eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.” That could be like shooting fish in a barrel, if his administration takes a few major steps to facilitate better coordination between agencies.

Update: A staffer at NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity passed along this critique of the CPR report cited above, from Michael Livermore, the institute’s executive director, and Richard Revesz, the dean of NYU’s law school. From the critique…

“I am not sure the business community sees any particular benefit to playing nice on these issues,” notes Michael A. Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “Clearly, they don’t see it in their interest to give the administration a lot of credit for what they have done so far.”