What Public Comments During Rulemaking Do (and Why)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7626901 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Brian Libgober (0000-0001-9638-0228, Northwestern University, corresponding author), Steven Rashin (0000-0003-1445-4188) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 715-730 |
| Publication date | 2023-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Politics Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1532-673X • E-ISSN: 1552-3373 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1532673x231175686 |
| OpenAlex | W4376876107 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 24 |
Public comments on proposed federal regulations are thought to influence bureaucratic policy choices, but why? While reelection incentives give politicians straightforward reasons for catering to public preferences, regulators lack similarly direct incentives to accede to demands from stake-holders. We argue commenters may adopt several different tactics to try and persuade regulators. Broadly, they may either describe policy consequences or threaten the regulator with sanctions, especially by the Courts or Congress. But which tactics do members of the public – especially firms and interest groups – use during commenting, and why? We explore this question by extensive manual coding of comments submitted by strategic actors during high-stakes financial rulemaking. We find that the vast majority of comments have purely informational content, with very limited threats to involve political principals. These findings should be surprising to a literature that often presumes a model where interest group commenting is a form of bargaining in the shadow of the Courts or Congress. To assess whether this behavior is driven by the benefits of information versus the costs of threatening, we explore how the strategy of outside interests changes across the resource distribution, and analyze the litigation records of firms against these agencies. We conclude with a case study of a high-stakes policy where different kinds of interests used different strategies
Bureaucracy · Business · Campaign finance · Economics · Incentive · Law and economics · Microeconomics · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Public interest · Public policy · Public relations · Rulemaking · Sanctions · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research · Regulation and Compliance Studies
Reputation and Power
Lobbying and Policy Change
Some Thoughts on "Deossifying" the Rulemaking Process
Discretionary Justice
Data and methods for analyzing special interest influence in rulemaking
A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy
Strategic Proposals, Endogenous Comments, and Bias in Rulemaking
Influence and the Administrative Process
Ex Post Lobbying
Information technology and public commenting on agency regulations
Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process
With Friends Like These
Do Administrative Procedures Fix Cognitive Biases
Slackers and Zealots
Congressional Oversight Overlooked
Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy
Flexing Muscle
Winner-Take-All Politics
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,8 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |