Monday, May 11, 2009

Preening, Pruning, and Getting Serious About Regulatory Review

In tomorrow’s hearing on Cass Sunstein’s nomination to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, we are sure to see some preening. The right opposes him for what he has argued on behalf of animal rights. The left opposes him for championing cost benefit analysis. (Bentham would cheer the President for this one, no doubt.) Sunstein’s offended just about everyone at some point in his long, distinguished career (funny how being a good academic will do that). Last year he argued that a President Obama ought not investigate or prosecute torturers while elsewhere arguing that states should shift to presuming consent to organ donation at death for all persons who don’t explicitly opt out. And so on.

All of this would be good for a laugh if it didn’t involve one of the most important jobs in the world. OIRA is poised to become even more of a force in global risk regulation as we confront climate change, health care reform, and a suite of other potentially catastrophic public problems throughout this Administration. What should the hearing focus on?

As I’ve argued before, we need to begin the much more detailed and difficult work of optimally standardizing cost benefit analysis—or, more accurately, risk/benefit analysis. Modernizing and standardizing risk/benefit analysis (RBA) is a process in which OIRA could play a big role. Teaching agency officials, refining the standard techniques to reflect informational and cognitive deficits, and expanding risk/benefit quantifications to make them sensitive to distributional disparities are all tasks on which OIRA has real advantages.

Ultimately, though, much of the developmental work this will entail must be done by others. Valuing, for example, the “ecosystem services” that healthy landscapes provide is not something OIRA can do. Assuming that such valuation can be done reliably (and I have doubts, I confess), it will be done by the many minds now out there inhabiting and living off of such landscapes today. It will be done by the many “action” agencies that constantly confront regulated parties, state and local governments, peers from other nations, and by courts as they review the rationality of particular actions in context. It entails, in short, panoptic awareness of information that is so widely dispersed in its natural state that it’s been ignored in regulatory review as we know it.

This suggests that OIRA has some serious institutional evolution ahead of it: transitioning from an inward-dwelling tyranny of desk-drivers to an outward-facing network hub. As such, it would work to optimize a connected whole of administrative decision-making, monitoring and searching for “activity motifs”—inferential chains that are over-represented in the network. Once found, these pieces could be replaced with standardized versions whenever the characteristic work is being done redundantly and some kind of modularity is appropriate. This would be attractive to action agencies if OIRA provided payoffs for adoption of its modules because it would allow an action agency to prune their own decision trees and speed their internal review processes. The modularity would be attractive to (most) third parties because it would enhance the transparency and predictability of agency decision-making and eventually facilitate cross-program comparisons by standardizing their logical and arithmetical guts.

Senator Lieberman’s Committee ought to engage the nominee on this transformative agenda for OIRA tomorrow morning because OIRA’s span of control is almost as broad as Congress’s own vast record of delegated discretion. OIRA today is the paradigmatic 21st century agency: fingers in everything, master of nothing, coupled to virtually every other agency through a myriad of pathways and, yet, owner of its own data silos. Rethinking the whole thing and reimagining it as a network of information collection, organization, and delivery would be truly transformative for, in the end, the value of CBA (or RBA) comes down to the information behind it. And improving that should be the goal of a publicly-oriented Congress. It remains to be seen whether we have one.

Posted by Jamie Colburn


Unknown said...

Very interesting post, but beyond my experience. Can you explain how OIRA could/would provide payoffs for the adoption of its "inference modules," as it were?

Jamison Colburn said...

Simple. OIRA could offer a "presumption of validity" to any action agency adopting its preferred methods in some given analytical leap. This would be a real payoff, as I understand it, because a lot of action agencies find the OIRA review process tedious and unpredictable, especially given the need to justify actions to two different masters (OIRA and the Article III courts). The presumption would only have to be a presumption, though.

Unknown said...

Makes perfect sense, thank you. Do you happen to have an online resource or two to which you point people wanting to learn more about the structure/functions of the OIRA? This is quite an interesting area.

Jamison Colburn said...

Hmmm. I know that NYU's "Institute for Policy Integrity" has done a lot of reporting on the OMB reform effort and that they've also put together some pretty nice reports on their own. Check it out here:


Anonymous said...


very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you"

good site


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

青青草園報導 大陸新娘介紹愛心助人,嘉義一名大陸新娘仲介為了救治同為外籍新娘介紹的好友莎莎,莎莎是一位外籍新娘仲介由於雙手工作受傷無法拿東西工作,越南新娘介紹每天早上都會送早餐去給莎莎吃他們常透過越南新娘仲介論壇此位越南新娘介紹還會幫生病小姑按摩,她有一個越南新娘仲介的好朋友阿花也從越南嫁來的她非常的有愛心,大陸新娘仲介體貼細心體貼的照顧小姑旁邊的居民都覺的非常的有愛心,由於外籍新娘介紹的先生是做水電工的,薪水很不多,她從無怨言,且大陸新娘介紹對小孩都照顧的很好,讓老公無後顧之憂在外打拼,外籍新娘仲介的孝行令他的越南新娘介紹朋友要她堅持只要女兒監護權,不要拿生活費,靠著越南新娘仲介的友人資助,從路邊攤起家賣




Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing and letting us aware about this information. This is a great thread, so much info.