Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking

被引:2
|
作者
Mendelson, Nina A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Sch Law, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
Administrative agencies frequently use guidance documents to set Policy broadly and prospectively in areas ranging from Department of Education Title IX enforcement to Food and Drug Administration regulation of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In form, these guidances often closely resemble the policies agencies issue in ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, guidances are generally developed with little public participation and are often immune from judicial review. Nonetheless, guidances can prompt significant changes in behavior from those the agencies regulate. A number of commentators have guardedly defended the current state Of affairs. Though guidances lack some important procedural safeguards, they can help agencies supervise low-level employees and supply valuable information to regulated entities regarding how an agency will implement a program. Thus far, however, the debate has largely ignored the distinct and substantial interests of regulatory beneficiaries-those who expect to benefit from government regulation of others. Regulatory beneficiaries include, among others, pharmaceutical consumers, environmental users, and workers seeking safe workplaces. When agencies make policy informally, regulatory beneficiaries suffer distinctive losses to their ability to participate in the agency's decision and to invoke judicial review. This Article argues that considering the interests of regulatory beneficiaries strengthens the case for Procedural reform. The Article then assesses some possible solutions.
引用
收藏
页码:397 / 452
页数:56
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR MEETINGS WITH A REGULATORY AGENCY
    Sturtevant, O. J.
    Nichols, K.
    Le, A.
    Janssen, W.
    Griffin, D.
    [J]. CYTOTHERAPY, 2017, 19 (05) : S67 - S67
  • [42] Regulatory Review, Capture, and Agency Inaction
    Livermore, Michael A.
    Revesz, Richard L.
    [J]. GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 2013, 101 (05) : 1337 - 1398
  • [43] The role of informal political actors in Japanese security policymaking: the case of Kitaoka Shin'ichi
    Matsuoka, Misato
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2020, 74 (06) : 670 - 686
  • [44] PUBLIC AGENCY LEADERSHIP: THE IMPACT OF INFORMAL UNDERSTANDINGS WITH POLITICAL APPOINTEES ON PERCEIVED AGENCY INNOVATION IN TAIWAN
    Berman, Evan
    Chen, Don-yun
    Jan, Chung-yuang
    Huang, Tong-yi
    [J]. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2013, 91 (02) : 303 - 324
  • [45] Dynamics of Regulatory Policymaking in Sweden: The Role of Media Advocacy and Public Opinion
    Rasmussen, Anne
    Romeijn, Jeroen
    Toshkov, Dimiter
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN POLITICAL STUDIES, 2018, 41 (01) : 49 - 74
  • [46] When does the multiple principals hypothesis hold? The politics of US agency policymaking autonomy
    Palus, Christine K.
    Yackee, Susan W.
    [J]. GOVERNANCE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION AND INSTITUTIONS, 2022, 35 (01): : 43 - 64
  • [47] Recovery Agency and Informal Recovery Pathways from Gambling Problems
    Vasiliadis, Sophie
    Thomas, Anna
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION, 2018, 16 (04) : 874 - 887
  • [48] Coordinating epistemic frames in informal physics: Agency, support, and technology
    Fiedler, Brett L.
    Bennett, Michael B.
    Johnson, Nicole E.
    Moore, Emily B.
    [J]. 2019 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE, 2019, : 159 - 164
  • [49] Recovery Agency and Informal Recovery Pathways from Gambling Problems
    Sophie Vasiliadis
    Anna Thomas
    [J]. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2018, 16 : 874 - 887
  • [50] Successful regulatory agency interaction - A nonclinical regulatory strategist's perspective
    Baldrick, Paul
    [J]. REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 130