The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States

Literature Cited

1. Acs A, Cameron CM 2013. Does White House regulatory review produce a chilling effect and “OIRA avoidance” in the agencies?. Presidential Stud. Q. 43:443–67
   [Google Scholar]
2. Al-Ubaydli O, McLaughlin PA 2017. RegData: a numerical database on industry-specific regulations for all United States industries and federal regulations, 1997–2012. Regul. Governance 11:109–23
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bawn K 1995. Political control versus expertise: congressional choices about administrative procedures. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 89:62–73
   [Google Scholar]
4. Berry CR, Gersen JE 2017. Agency design and political control. Yale Law J 126:908–1241
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bertelli AM, Grose CR 2011. The lengthening shadow of another institution? Ideal point estimates for the executive branch and Congress. Am. J. Political Sci. 55:767–81
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bignami FE 1999. The democratic deficit in the European Community rulemaking: a call for notice and comment in comitology. Harvard Int. Law J. 40:451–516
   [Google Scholar]
7. Boushey GT, McGrath RJ 2017. Experts, amateurs, and bureaucratic influence in the American states. J. Public Adm. Theory 27:85–103
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bressman LS, Vandenbergh MP 2006. Inside the administrative state: a critical look at the practice of presidential control. Mich. Law Rev. 105:47–99
   [Google Scholar]
9. Callander S, Krehbiel K 2014. Gridlock and delegation in a changing world. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:819–34
   [Google Scholar]
10. Carpenter DP 2002. Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. Am. J. Political Sci. 46:490–505
    [Google Scholar]
11. Carpenter DP 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
12. Carpenter DP, Chattopadhyay J, Moffitt S, Nall C 2012. The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety. Am. J. Political Sci. 56:98–114
    [Google Scholar]
13. Carpenter DP, Krause GA 2012. Reputation and public administration. Public Adm. Rev. 72:26–32
    [Google Scholar]
14. Carpenter DP, Moss D 2014. Preventing Capture: Special Interest Influence in Regulation, and How to Prevent It Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
15. Chubb JE 1983. Interest Groups and the Bureaucracy: The Politics of Energy Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
16. Clinton JD, Bertelli AM, Grose CR, Lewis DE, Nixon DC 2012. Separated powers in the United States: the ideology of agencies, presidents, and Congress. Am. J. Political Sci. 56:341–54
    [Google Scholar]
17. Clinton JD, Lewis DE 2008. Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Anal 16:3–20
    [Google Scholar]
18. Cooper J, West W 1988. Presidential power and Republican government: the theory and practice of OMB review. J. Politics 50:864–95
    [Google Scholar]
19. Copeland CW 2009. Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Washington, DC: Congr. Res. Serv.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Crews CW Jr. 2016a. Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State Washington, DC: Compet. Enterp. Inst https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Crews%20-%20Ten%20Thousand%20Commandments%202016%20-%20May%204%202016.pdf . Accessed May 15, 2017
    [Google Scholar]
21. Crews CW Jr. 2016b. Obama's legacy: 2016 ends with a record-shattering regulatory rulebook. Forbes Dec. 30. https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/12/30/obamas-legacy-2016-ends-with-a-record-shattering-regulatory-rulebook/#bb428151126b
    [Google Scholar]
22. Croley SP 1998. Theories of regulation: incorporating the administrative process. Columbia Law Rev 98:1–168
    [Google Scholar]
23. DeMuth CC, Ginsburg DH 1986. White House review of agency rulemaking. Harvard Law Rev 99:1075–88
    [Google Scholar]
24. Eavey CL, Miller GJ 1984. Bureaucratic agenda control: imposition or bargaining. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 78:719–33
    [Google Scholar]
25. Epstein D, Farina C, Heidt J 2014. The value of words: narrative as evidence in policy making. Evidence Policy 10:243–58
    [Google Scholar]
26. Epstein D, O'Halloran S 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers Boston, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
27. Ferejohn J, Shipan C 1990. Congressional influence on bureaucracy. J. Law Econ. Organ. 6:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
28. Freeman J, Spence DB 2014. Old statutes, new problems. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 163:1–94
    [Google Scholar]
29. Funk WF 2001. A primer on nonlegislative rules. Adm. Law Rev. 53:1321–52
    [Google Scholar]
30. Funk WF, Shapiro SA, Weaver RL 1997. Administrative Procedure and Practice: Problems and Cases St. Paul, MN: West Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Furlong SR 1998. Political influence on the bureaucracy: the bureaucracy speaks. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 8:39–65
    [Google Scholar]
32. Furlong SR, Kerwin CM 2005. Interest group participation in rule making: a decade of change. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 15:353–70
    [Google Scholar]
33. Gailmard S, Patty JW 2013. Learning while Governing Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
34. Golden MM 1998. Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 8:245–70
    [Google Scholar]
35. Golden MM 2000. What Motivates Bureaucrats? Politics and Administration during the Reagan Years New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
36. GW Regul. Stud. Cent. 2018. CRA tracker. The Congressional Review Act. Updated June 1, 2018; accessed Sept. 24, 2018. https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/congressional-review-act
37. Haeder S, Yackee SW 2015. Influence and the administrative process: lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:507–22
    [Google Scholar]
38. Haeder S, Yackee SW 2018. Presidentially directed policy change: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as partisan or moderator?. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 28:4475–-88
    [Google Scholar]
39. Hamilton JT 1996. Going by the (informal) book: the EPA's use of informal rules in enforcing hazardous waste laws. Adv. Stud. Entrepreneurship Innov. Growth 7:109–55
    [Google Scholar]
40. Hammond TH, Knott JH 1996. Who controls the bureaucracy? Presidential power, congressional dominance, legal constraints, and bureaucratic autonomy in a model of multi-institutional policymaking. J. Law Econ. Organ. 12:119–66
    [Google Scholar]
41. Harter P 1982. Regulatory negotiations: a cure for the malaise. Georgetown Law J 71:1–118
    [Google Scholar]
42. Hill LB 1991. Who governs the American administrative state? A bureaucratic-centered image of governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 3:261–94
    [Google Scholar]
43. Hrebenar RJ 1997. Interest Group Politics in America Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
44. Huber JD, Shipan CR 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
45. Jasanoff S 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 17:195–230
    [Google Scholar]
46. Jensen CB, McGrath RJ 2011. Making rules about rulemaking: a comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. Political Res. Q. 64:656–67
    [Google Scholar]
47. Jewell C, Bero L 2007. Public participation and claimsmaking: evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California's ergonomics rulemaking. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 17:625–50
    [Google Scholar]
48. Kagan E 2001. Presidential administration. Harvard Law Rev 114:2245–385
    [Google Scholar]
49. Kaufman C 2016. Republican Trump says 70 percent of federal regulations “can go. .” Reuters Oct. 6
    [Google Scholar]
50. Kerwin CM, Furlong SR 1992. Time and rulemaking: an empirical test of theory. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2:113–38
    [Google Scholar]
51. Kerwin CM, Furlong SR 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy Washington, DC: CQ Press, 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
52. Lavertu S, Yackee SW 2014. Regulatory delay and rulemaking deadlines. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 24:209–34
    [Google Scholar]
53. Lewis DE 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
54. Lubbers JS 2006. A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking Washington, DC: ABA Press
    [Google Scholar]
55. MacDonald J 2010. Limitation riders and congressional influence over bureaucratic policy decisions. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104:766–82
    [Google Scholar]
56. Magat WA, Krupnick AJ, Harrington W 1986. Rules in the Making: A Statistical Analysis of Regulatory Agency Behavior Washington, DC: Resour. Future
    [Google Scholar]
57. Mashaw JL 1994. Improving the environment of agency rule-making: an essay on management, games, and accountability. Law Contemp. Probl. 57:185–257
    [Google Scholar]
58. Mashaw JL 1997. Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
59. McCubbins MD 1999. Abdication or delegation? Congress, the bureaucracy, and the delegation dilemma. Regulation 22:2–24
    [Google Scholar]
60. McCubbins MD, Noll RG, Weingast BR 1987. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law Econ. Organ. 3:243–77
    [Google Scholar]
61. McCubbins MD, Noll RG, Weingast BR 1989. Structure and process as solutions to the politicians principal-agency problem. Va. Law Rev. 74:431–82
    [Google Scholar]
62. McGarity TO 1992. Some thoughts on “deossifying” the rulemaking process. Duke Law J 41:1384–462
    [Google Scholar]
63. McKay A, Yackee SW 2007. Interest group competition on federal agency rules. Am. Politics Res. 35:336–57
    [Google Scholar]
64. McLaughlin P, Nelson J, Pagels J, Sherouse O 2017. The Impossibility of Comprehending, or Even Reading, All Federal Regulations Rep. Mercatus Cent., George Mason Univ. Oct. 23. https://www.mercatus.org/print/266634, accessed Dec. 15, 2017
    [Google Scholar]
65. Meazell EH 2011. Super deference, the science obsession, and judicial review as translation of agency science. Mich. Law Rev. 109:733–84
    [Google Scholar]
66. Mendleson N 2007. Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking. Cornell Law Rev 92:397–452
    [Google Scholar]
67. Miller JC III. 2011. The early days of Reagan regulatory relief and suggestions for OIRA's future. Adm. Law Rev. 63:93–101
    [Google Scholar]
68. Moffitt SL 2010. Promoting agency reputation through public advice: advisory committee use in the FDA. J. Politics 72:880–93
    [Google Scholar]
69. Naughton K, Schmid C, Yackee SW, Zhan X 2009. Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 28:258–77
    [Google Scholar]
70. Newport F 2014. Few Americans want more government regulation of business. Gallup News Sept. 15. http://news.gallup.com/poll/176015/few-americans-gov-regulation-business.aspx, accessed Dec. 15, 2017
    [Google Scholar]
71. Nelson D, Yackee SW 2012. Lobbying coalitions and government policy change. J. Politics 74:339–53
    [Google Scholar]
72. New Hampshire Public Radio. 2017. Civics 101: a podcast http://www.nhpr.org/topic/civics-101-podcast#stream/0, accessed Dec. 15, 2017
    [Google Scholar]
73. Nixon DC 2004. Separation of powers and appointee ideology. J. Law Econ. Organ. 20:438–57
    [Google Scholar]
74. Nixon DC, Howard RM, DeWhitt JR 2002. With friends like these: rule-making comment submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 12:59–76
    [Google Scholar]
75. Notes: OIRA avoidance. 2011. Harvard Law Rev 124994–1015
    [Google Scholar]
76. Nou J 2013. Agency self-insulation under presidential review. Harvard Law Rev 126:1755–837
    [Google Scholar]
77. Olson M Jr. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
78. Pagliari S, Young K 2016. The interest group ecology of financial regulation: interest group plurality in the design of financial regulatory policies. Socio-Econ. Rev. 14:309–37
    [Google Scholar]
79. Palus C, Yackee SW 2016. Clerks or kings? Partisan alignment and delegation to the U.S. bureaucracy. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 26:693–708
    [Google Scholar]
80. Pasachoff E 2016. The president's budget as a source of agency policy control. Yale Law J 125:2182–290
    [Google Scholar]
81. Pew Research Center. 2012. Mixed views of regulation, support for Keystone Pipeline Rep. Pew Res. Cent. People Press Washington, DC: Feb. 23. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/legacy-pdf/2-23-12%20Regulation%20release.pdf, accessed Dec. 15, 2017
    [Google Scholar]
82. Pierce RJ Jr. 1985. The role of constitutional and political theory in administrative law. Texas Law Rev 64:469–506
    [Google Scholar]
83. Potoski M 2002. Designing bureaucratic performance: administrative procedures and agency policy choice. State Politics Policy Q 2:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
84. Potter RA 2017. Slow-rolling, fast-tracking, and the pace of bureaucratic decisions in rulemaking. J. Politics 79:841–55
    [Google Scholar]
85. Radin B 2015. Science and policy analysis in the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Adm. Soc. 2015:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
86. Resh WG 2015. Rethinking the Administrative Presidency: Trust, Intellectual Capital, and Appointee-Careerist Relations in the George W. Bush Administration Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
87. Richmond T 2017. Conservative firm challenges DPI's authority again. U.S. News & World Rep. Nov. 20. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2017-11-20/conservative-group-challenges-dpis-rule-making-authority
    [Google Scholar]
88. Rose-Ackerman S 2018. Citizen and technocrats: an essay on trust, public participation, and government legitimacy. Comparative Administrative Law S Rose-Ackerman, PL Lindseth, B Emerson 251–67 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
89. Rosenbloom DH 2011. Federalist No. 10: How do factions affect the president as administrator-in-chief?. Public Adm. Rev. 71:522–28
    [Google Scholar]
90. Rosenbloom DH 2014. Administrative Law for Public Managers Boulder, CO: Westview, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
91. Rossi J 1997. Participation run amok: the costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 92:173–249
    [Google Scholar]
92. Rossi J 1999. “Statutory nondelegation”: learning from Florida's recent experience in administrative procedure reform. Widener J. Public Law 8:301–46
    [Google Scholar]
93. Rourke FE 1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy Boston: Little, Brown, 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
94. Seindenfeld M 1997. Demystifying deossification: rethinking recent proposals to modify judicial review of notice and comment rulemaking. Texas Law Rev 75:483–524
    [Google Scholar]
95. Shapiro S 2005. Unequal partners: cost-benefit analysis and executive review of regulations. Environ. Law Rep. 35:10433–44
    [Google Scholar]
96. Shapiro S 2011. OIRA inside and out. Adm. Law Rev. 63:135–47
    [Google Scholar]
97. Shapiro S, Moran D 2016. The checkered history of regulatory reform since the APA. NYU J. Legis. Public Policy 19:141–215
    [Google Scholar]
98. Spence DB 1999. Agency discretion and the dynamics of procedural reform. Public Adm. Rev. 59:425–40
    [Google Scholar]
99. United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 517 1911.
100. US FDA (Food Drug Adm.). 2011. Advancing Regulatory Science at FDA: A Strategic Plan (August 2011) Rep. US Food Drug Adm., US Dep. Health Hum. Serv. Washington, DC: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/UCM268225.pdf, accessed Nov. 2012
     [Google Scholar]
101. Wagner WE 1995. The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Columbia Law Rev 95:1613–723
     [Google Scholar]
102. Wagner WE 2015. A place for agency expertise: reconciling agency expertise with presidential power. Columbia Law Rev 115:2019–69
     [Google Scholar]
103. Walker JL 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
104. Warren KF 2010. Administrative Law in the Political System Boulder, CO: Westview, 5th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
105. Weingast BR 1984. The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal-agent perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice 44:147–91
     [Google Scholar]
106. West WF 1995. Controlling the Bureaucracy: Institutional Constraints in Theory and Practice New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
107. West WF 2004. Formal procedures, informal procedures, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policymaking: an institutional policy analysis. Public Adm. Rev. 64:66–80
     [Google Scholar]
108. West WF 2005. The institutionalization of regulatory review: organizational stability and responsive competence at OIRA. Presidential Stud. Q. 35:76–93
     [Google Scholar]
109. West WF 2006. Presidential leadership and administrative coordination: examining the theory of a unified executive. Presidential Stud. Q. 36:433–56
     [Google Scholar]
110. West WF 2009. Inside the black box: the development of proposed rules and the limits of procedural controls. Adm. Soc. 41:576–96
     [Google Scholar]
111. West WF, Raso C 2012. Who shapes the rulemaking agenda? Implications for bureaucratic responsiveness and bureaucratic control. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 23:495–515
     [Google Scholar]
112. Wilson JQ 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It New York: Basic Books
     [Google Scholar]
113. Wiseman AE 2009. Delegation and positive-sum bureaucracies. J. Politics 71:998–1014
     [Google Scholar]
114. Yackee JW, Yackee SW 2006. A bias toward business? Assessing interest group influence on the bureaucracy. J. Politics 68:128–39
     [Google Scholar]
115. Yackee JW, Yackee SW 2009. Is the Bush bureaucracy any different? A macro-empirical examination of notice and comment rulemaking under “43.”. President George W. Bush's Influence Over Bureaucracy and Policy: Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Powers C Provost, P Teske 41–59 New York: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
116. Yackee JW, Yackee SW 2010. Is agency rulemaking “ossified”? Testing congressional, presidential, and judicial procedural constraints. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 20:261–82
     [Google Scholar]
117. Yackee JW, Yackee SW 2012. An empirical examination of federal regulatory volume and speed, 1950–1990. George Wash. Law Rev. 80:1414–92
     [Google Scholar]
118. Yackee JW, Yackee SW 2016. From legislation to regulation: an empirical examination of agency responsiveness to congressional delegations of regulatory authority. Adm. Law Rev. 68:395–445
     [Google Scholar]
119. Yackee SW 2006a. Sweet-talking the fourth branch: assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 26:103–24
     [Google Scholar]
120. Yackee SW 2006b. Assessing inter-institutional attention to and influence on government regulations. Br. J. Political Sci. 36:723–44
     [Google Scholar]
121. Yackee SW 2012. The politics of ex parte lobbying: pre-proposal agenda building and blocking during agency rulemaking. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22:373–93
     [Google Scholar]
122. Yackee SW 2014. Reconsidering agency capture during regulatory policymaking. Preventing Capture: Special Interest Influence in Regulation, and How to Prevent It D Carpenter, D Moss 292–325 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
123. Yackee SW 2015a. Participant voice in the bureaucratic policymaking process. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 25:427–49
     [Google Scholar]
124. Yackee SW 2015b. Invisible (and visible) lobbying: the case of state regulatory policymaking. State Politics Policy Q 15:322–44
     [Google Scholar]
125. Yaver M 2015. When do Agencies have Agency? Bureaucratic Noncompliance and Dynamic Lawmaking in United States Statutory Law, 1973–2010 PhD Diss., Columbia Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
126. Young KL, Marple T, Heilman J 2017. Beyond the revolving door: advocacy behavior and social distance to financial regulators. Bus. Politics 19:327–64
     [Google Scholar]