View article

This paper provides the first systematic empirical study of how differences in the regulatory review processes across the 50 US states affect the level of regulation. Inefficient regulations that create costs exceeding their benefits can significantly lower economic growth and dampen entrepreneurial activity. While some inefficient regulations are genuine mistakes arising from unforeseen outcomes of well-intentioned policies, some are the result of politically powerful interest groups seeking to gain at the expense of the general public. Attempts to constrain state regulatory processes have ranged from outright moratoriums on new regulations to varying requirements for regulatory review. We examine whether rules for regulatory review, such as types of cost-benefit analysis, as well as who is responsible for conducting the review, matter in terms of lowering the overall level of regulation in states. Our findings suggest that sunset provisions are by far the most effective means of constraining state regulatory systems. Requirements for reviewing the fiscal impacts of new regulations on state government budgets and to present alternative lower-cost policies for achieving the same policy goals also appear to be somewhat effective. There is limited evidence that a regulatory review process housed in the state legislative branch or an independent agency leads to fewer new regulations.