Getting Our Priorities Straight: One Strand of the Regulatory Reform Debate

Abstract

This article seeks to clarify the conceptual basis for the claim that regulatory priorities are seriously askew, a claim that has played a prominent role in the ongoing regulatory reform debate. It develops a theoretical framework clarifying the meaning of priority setting. It claims that the regulatory reform debate has paid little attention to the information most obviously relevant to determining whether serious priority setting defects exist. And regulatory reformers principle recommendation for improving priority setting, increased use of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory proceedings, has, at best, a tenuous connection with priority setting. Regulatory reformers have conflated concerns about excessively stringent regulation with concerns about setting priorities. This article clarifies the relationship between these concerns.