Improving Regulatory Performance: Does Executive Office Oversight Matter?

Abstract

Executive Office review and oversight of proposed federal regulations have been a bipartisan action of presidents and some governors. Proposals for regulatory improvement regularly highlight the role of benefit-cost analysis in this process. Supporters argue that the purpose of a benefit-cost review is to improve the social (net) benefits of implemented regulations. The evaluation question is whether Executive Office review has actually improved performance. This paper uses information on the status of regulations and their estimated economic impact to determine if Executive Office review has changed the outcome in different Administrations. The study is based on cost-effectiveness data that have had a large role in the debate about regulation and while an extensive critique of the data exists, its issues are addressed. The results indicate that while Executive Office review is associated with rejecting some regulations that would have been economically inefficient, such review appears to have no efficiency improving impact on the difference between proposed and final regulations or on the cost effectiveness of regulations that are implemented.