Thousands Of Regulations Research Articles

Optimalisasi Peran DPRD dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah di Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Barat

Indonesia has thousands of regulations issued by both the central government and regional governments. Regional regulations were born from the design of regional autonomy which was formed based on the freedom and independence of regions to manage their own households. The essence of the formation of regional regulations is aimed at providing protection and welfare for the community. However, it cannot be denied that there are still many regional regulations that are problematic both in terms of quality and quantity. One of the reasons why many regional regulations are problematic is that regional governments and DPRD are less than optimal in carrying out the legislative functions attached to them. So, to solve this problem, it is necessary to optimize the role of the DPRD in forming regional regulations. This research is empirical juridical research that uses a descriptive approach. The population and sample for this research is the DPRD of West Tanjung Jabung Regency. The purpose of this research is to provide an understanding of the implications of Law Number 13 of 2022 concerning Regulations for the Formation of Legislation on existing Regional Regulations as well as understanding the formation of Regional Regulations using the omnibus law method and it is hoped that this can become evaluation material for the government to overcome the problem of too many regulations (overregulated), overlapping (overlapping). The results of this research are that in an effort to overcome a number of problematic regional regulations, the omnibus law method is a new breakthrough in structuring regional regulations. Structuring regional regulations using the omnibus law method will be more effective and efficient in simplifying the formation of regional regulations and development, producing quality regional regulations and making the implementation of regulations more effective.

Handmaidens of the legislature? Understanding regulatory timing

AbstractWhen does legislation trigger regulation? The US Congress regularly passes laws that authorise government agencies to write legally binding regulations. Yet, when this occurs, agencies may take years to act – or, at times – may never act at all. We theorise that the breadth of the congressional statutory delegation drives the timing of agency policy production. In particular, when Congress expressly tells an agency to promulgate a rule, we expect agencies to do so quickly. Yet, when Congress provides greater policymaking discretion to agencies, we expect other factors – and especially, internal agency considerations – to drive regulatory timing. We use data from almost 350 statutes spanning four decades, which are then matched up with thousands of regulations, to assess the argument. Using innovative methods, we find support for our hypotheses. Overall, we produce a deeper understanding of the link between delegation and discretion: suggesting when it occurs, as well as, importantly, why.

Regulating Health Care: Perspectives From Government Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Health care is beset with an array of market failures (e.g., informational asymmetries, externalities, monopolization, and public goods). In theory, government can intervene to fix these market failures, allowing scarce resources to be devoted to their highest use at the lowest possible cost with the fewest possible distortions -- thereby promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That theory has launched thousands of laws, tens of thousands of regulations, and hundreds of thousands of pages of law review articles -- all premised on the assumption that markets are flawed but government is not. Of course, it takes the willful suspension of disbelief to accept the premise that governmental failures do not occur. Even under the best of circumstances, government failures do occur. We focus in this article on the failures of public health experts/professionals in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services – particularly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in responding to COVID-19. If anyone had the technical expertise and resources to do a good job responding to COVID-19, it was the CDC. If this agency was not up to the task of responding with a minimum amount of competence and diligence to COVID-19, then the case for expecting government to correct market failures without making things worse becomes far more tenuous.

Touch—High or Low—Is Sometimes More Important Than High Tech

“Touch,” the ability to connect at a level relevant to those we try to serve, is as important (arguably more important) than deploying the high-level technology our best minds develop. I was treated to an example of this during my visit to Sony Labs several weeks ago to discuss how we might collaborate to accelerate implementation of telehealth technologies. We agreed that bringing the developed world’s healthcare systems into the 21st Century is not an easy task. There are thousands of regulations, millions of healthcare workers whose jobs are at stake, and too many politicians unwilling to tell their voters that their healthcare systems are broken and financially broke.

One Nation, Ungovernable? Confronting the Modern Regulatory State

The modern conceit is that administrative regulation and rule making work. Overreach by bureaucracy and the administrative state may not only impede economic efficiency but also undermine health, safety, and environmental progress. Healthy government requires recognizing downsides to coercive intervention; it requires vigilant legislative and executive institutions and mindsets that seek reasons not to add yet another rule or decree to the existing tens of thousands. Meanwhile the public has a right to know the ways federal agencies have harmed and harm that which they oversee, and how those negatives may propagate beyond the agency throughout the economy and society. Part 2 points to some economic and social consequences of the unrestrained modern government, and takes a moment to recognize (or perhaps lament) that, while the Constitution is not coming to the rescue, we are not without options. Part 3, in light of Congress’ over-delegation of power to federal agencies, briefly reviews the formal oversight procedures that ostensibly exist for the thousands of regulations issuing annually. Part 4 shows that central oversight of regulation sports theoretical inconsistencies and gaps and argues it has not worked, but posits why, just possibly, it could. Part 5 presents the data demonstrating that federal regulatory review has fallen short and is far from comprehensive. Part 6 covers some of what is (imperfectly) known about regulatory burdens and volume to help inform efforts to liberalize. Finally, Part 7—given the reality that code or administrative agency law is here to stay for the time being—offers disclosure-based “low-hanging-fruit” reform proposals, while remaining cognizant of central review’s shortcomings.

Exaggerated risks of chemicals

The citizens of the United States have unreasonably great fears of chemicals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has become one of the most powerful governmental divisions in Washington. It has been given legal authority to create and enforce thousands of regulations. The impact of these regulations on all of us is in process of being increased. Tougher federal environmental enforcement will adversely affect taxpayers, agriculture, the chemical industry and the profession of chemistry. Until recently, the effects of regulatory zeal were not visible, though hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent without provable benefits to the nation’s health. Currently there exists considerable public and special interest pressure to force reduction in the use of pesticides. There is no solid evidence that the tiny amounts remaining on fruits and vegetables are harmful. For many years the EPA has maintained regulatory levels so that an individual eating food containing the EPA top level of a pesticide for a lifetime would have less than one chance in a million of incurring cancer as a result of eating that food. Levels of pesticides in foods are monitored by the Food and Drug Administration. FDA findings indicate that only tiny concentrations of agricultural pesticides are present in foods in supermarkets and that a large fraction has no detectable amounts of pesticides at all [l]. In summary, pesticides in foods are having no more than a trivial effect if any on human health. In contrast, consuming substantial amounts of fruits and vegetables have long been suspected to have beneficial effects. Many isolated studies of the matter have been published. Professor Gladys Block and associates of the University of California at Berkeley have performed a public service by assembling results of 172 studies conducted in places around the world [2]. Their analysis compared cancer rates for a quartile of people consuming an average of O-l fruits and vegetables a day with a quartile eating &5. The contrast in relative risk of cancer in various organs of the body was impressive. For example, the beneficial effect of consuming adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables was a factor of 2.2 for lung, 2.5 for stomach, 2.8 for pancreas and 1.9 for colorectal sites. Those great benefits to health are in danger of being curtailed. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has announced a goal of decreasing use of pesticides by 70% during the next three years. If this policy is implemented, production of many fruits and vegetables would be adversely affected. In other words, were EPA to ban pesticides and cause fruits and vegetables to become expensive or unavailable, it could be responsible for causing annually tens of thousands of cancer deaths. Having been an agent in causing widespread fear of cancer, EPA must now deal with consequences of its earlier actions. The public anxiety about pesticides and other chemicals led to demands for safety from them. Earlier, Congress passed many different complex laws. In numerous instances, the wording of these laws is conflicting. The EPA must also deal with the Delaney clause, which was enacted before the