Il controllo sugli strumenti di better regulation

Testi di interesse

  • N. Bagley (2014), The Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability, in Harv. L. Rev., Vol. 127, n. 5, pp. 1285-1340
  • B. R. Clark (2014), APA Deference After Independent Living Center: Why Informal Adjudicatory Action Needs A Hard Look, in Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 102, n. 2, pp. 211-254
  • R. Effron (2014), Reason Giving and Rule Making in Procedural Law, in Alabama Law Review, Vol. 65, n. 3, Forthcoming; Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper n. 294
  • C. Scott (2014), Evaluating the Performance and Accountability of Regulators, 37 Seattle U. L. Rev., Vol. 37, pp. 353 – 374
  • C. M. Sharkey (2014), State Farm ‘with Teeth’: Heightened Judicial Review in the Absence of Executive Oversight, in New York University Law Review, Vol. 90, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper n. 14-15
  • L. M. Solan (2014), Is It Time for a Restatement of Statutory Interpretation?, in Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 79, p. 733. Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper n. 376
  • C.R. Sunstein (2014), From Technocrat to Democrat, in Harvard Law Review. Forthcoming; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 14-10. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414616 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414616
  • K. A. Watts (2014), Rulemaking as Legislating, in Georgetown Law Journal, Forthcoming; University of Washington School of Law Research Paper n. 2014-17
  • C. D. Ahlers (2013), Presidential Authority Over EPA Rulemaking Under the Clean Air ActPublished in Environmental Law, Vol. 44, Issue 1 (Lewis & Clark Law School); Vermont Law School Research Paper n. 11-14
  • L. Al-Alami (2013), Business Roundtable v. Sec: Rising Judicial Mistrust and the Onset of a new era in judicial review of securities regulation, in University of Pennsylvania journal of business law, Vol. 15, pp. 541-564
  • A. Alemanno (2013), The Emergence of the Evidence-based Judicial Reflex: A Response to Bar-Siman-Tov’s Semiprocedural Review, in Theory and practice of legislation, Vol. 1, n. 2
  • P. P. Craig (2013), The Nature of Reasonableness Review, in Current Legal Problem, Vol. 1, pp. 1-37
  • B. D. Feinstein (2013), Congressional Control of Administrative Agencies
  • M. A. Livermore (2013), Cost-Benefit Analysis and Agency Independence, in University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming; Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 2013-09
  • J. D. Mortenson (2013), Law Matters, Even to the Executive, in Michigan Law Review, Vol. 112; University of Michigan Law Research Paper n. 408
  • S. Shapiro e J. Morrall (2013), Does haste make waste? How long does it take to do a good regulatory impact analysis?, in Administration & Society
  • J. Sharpe (2013), Judging Congressional Oversight, in Administrative Law Review, Vol. 65, n. 2
  • J. P. Smith (2013), Chevron Step Zero after City of Arlington. Tax Notes, Vol. 140, p. 713
  • C. R. Sunstein (2013), Nonsectarian Welfare Statements, in Regulation & Governance, Forthcoming
  • C. R. Sunstein (2013), The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 126, pp. 1838-1878
  • A. H. Türk (2013), Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking: Judicial Review, in European Law Journal, Vol. 19, n. 1, pp. 126–142
  • I. Bar-Siman-Tov (2012), Semiprocedural Judicial Review, in Legisprudence, Vol. 6, n. 3
  • L. S. Bressman (2012), Beyond accountability: arbitrariness and legitimacy in the Administrative Statepp,  in New York University Law Review, Vol. 78, HeinOnline, pp. 461-553
  • Administrative Law (2012) – Corporate Governance Regulation – D.C. Circuit Finds SEC Proxy Access Rule Arbitrary and Capricious for Inadequate Economic Analysis. – Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011), in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 125, pp. 1088-1095
  • M. Benedetti (2012), Il controllo sull’analisi di impatto della regolazione: l’esperienza degli Oversight Bodies, in Rivista trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, n. 4, p. 1057
  • R. A. Benedict (2012), Judicial Review of SEC Rules: Managing the Costs of Cost-Benefit Analysis, in Judicial review of SEC rules, pp. 278-305
  • J. D. Cox, B. J. C. Baucom (2012), The Emperor Has No Clothes: Confronting the D.C. Circuit’s Usurpation of SEC Rulemaking Authority, in Texas Law Review, Vol. 90, pp. 1811-1847
  • J.-P. Duprat (2012), The judicial review of ex ante impact assessment in France: an attempt to fuse the principles of legal certainty and institutional balance, in Legisprudence, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 379-396
  • O. Fritsch, C. M. Radaelli, L. Schrefler, A. Renda (2012), Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the UK: Old questions and new findings, Centre for European Policy Studies Working Document, n. 362
  • M. Gibbons, D. Parker (2012), Impact assessments and better regulation: the role of the UK’s Regulatory Policy Committee, in Public Money & Management, 32:4, pp. 257-264
  • E. Korkea-aho (2012), Better judicial review? Eu courts and the smart regulation agenda in implementing chemicals regulation, in Legisprudence, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 397-423
  • B. Kraus, C. Raso (2012), Rational Boundariesfor SEC Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • K. Lenaerts (2012), The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review, College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper, n. 1
  • E. Mak (2012), Judicial review of regulatory instruments: the least imperfect alternative?, in Legisprudence, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 301-319
  • K. Meßerschmidt (2012), The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court, in Legisprudence, Vol. 6, n. 3, pp. 347-378
  • P. Popelier (2012), Preliminary Comments on the role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdog, in Legisprudence, Vol 6, n. 3, pp. 257-270
  • C. M. Radaelli (2012), Measuring Regulatory Quality? No Thanks (But Why Not?), in Eur. J. Risk Reg. n. 1, HeinOnline, pp. 108-112
  • T. Stratmann, J.W. Verret (2012), Does Shareholder Proxy Access Damage Share Value in Small Publicly Traded Companies?, in Stanford. Law Review, Vol. 64:1431, pp. 1431-1468
  • A. Alemanno (2011), A Meeting of Minds on Impact Assessment. When Ex Ante Evaluation Meets Ex Post Judicial Control, in European Public Law, Vol. 17, n. 3, pp. 485–505
  • S. Waisman (2011), Deference to the rulemaker, not to the rule: the D.C. circuit’s enabling rejection of the SEC’s fixed indexed annuities rule in American equity investment life insurance co. V. SEC, in Boston College Law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 197-211
  • R. Connor (2010), Administrative law-agency deference cost-benefit analysis under 33 U.S.C. § 1326(B), in Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 77, pp. 443-470
  • D. Keyaerts (2010), Ex Ante Evaluation of EU Legislation Intertwined With Judicial Review? Comment on Vodafone Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-58/08), in European Law Review, p. 869
  • J. B. Wiener, A. Alemanno (2010), Comparing regulatory oversight bodies across the Atlantic: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU, in Comparative Administrative Law
  • C. Cecot, R. Hahn, A. Renda, L. Schrefle (2008), An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU, in Regulation & Governance, n. 2, pp. 405–424
  • S. Shapiro (2008), Evaluating the benefits and costs of regulatory reforms: What questions need to be asked?, in Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 223 ss
  • C. Cecot, R. Hahn, A. Renda, L. Schrefler (2007), An Evaluation of the Quality of Impact Assessment in the European Union with Lessons for the U.S. and the EU, AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies, Working Paper, Washington
  • K. Boyfield (2007), RIAs: why don’t they work? A submission to the Business Council for Britain, Centre for Policy Studies, London
  • L. S. Bressman (2007), Procedures as Politics in Administrative Law, in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 107, n. 8, pp. 1750-1820
  • R. W. Hahn, P.C. Tetlock (2007), Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?, Working Paper 07-08, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington
  • R. W. Hahn, R.E. Litan (2007), An Analysis of the Tenth Government Report On the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
  • S. Shapiro (2007), Presidents and Process: A Comparison of the Regulatory Process Under the Clinton and Bush (43) Administrations, in Journal of Law & Politics, Vol. 23, pp. 393-418
  • E. Sherwin (2007), The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Lessons from the SEC’s Stalled Mutual Fund Reform Effort, in Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance, Vol. 12, pp. 1-60
  • L. S. Bressman, M.P. Vandebergh (2006), Inside the Administrative State: A Critical Look at the Practice of Presidential Control, in Michigan Law Review, Vol. 105, pp. 47-100
  • J. D. Cox (2006), The Role of Empirical Evidence in Evaluating the Wisdom of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 824-844
  • M. C. Stephenson (2006), A Costly Signaling Theory of “Hard Look” Judicial Review, in Admin. L. Rev., Vol. 58, pp. 753-814
  • C. Jacobs (2005), Improving the quality of regulatory impact assessments in the Uk, in Centre on Regulation and Competition, Papers Series, n.102, University of Manchester and British Council
  • M.E. Magill (2004), Agency Choice of Policymaking Form, in University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 1383 ss
  • S. Shapiro (2004), Unequal Partners: Cost-benefit Analysis and Executive Review of Regulation, disponibile in http://ssrn.com/abstract=590241 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.590241
  • S. Croley (2003), White House Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Empirical Investigation, in The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70, pp. 821-885
  • W. Harrington, R.D Morgestern (2003), Evaluating Regulatory Impact Analyses, Working Party on Regulatory Management and Reform – Regulatory Performance: Ex Post Evaluation of Regulatory Policies, Document 6, Paris
  • E. Kagan (2001), Presidential Administration, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114, HeinOnline, pp. 2245-2383
  • National Audit Office (2001), Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General – HC 329 Session 2001 – 2002, London
  • E. A. Posner (2001), Controlling Agencies with Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Positive Political Theory Perspective, in The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 68, n. 4, pp. 1137-1199
  • F.  Anderson, M. A. Chirba-Martin, E. D. Elliotr, C. Farina, E. Gellhorn, J. D. Graham, C. B. Gray, J. Holmstead, R. M. Levin, L. Noah, K. Rhyne, J. B. Wiener (2000), Regulatory improvement legislation: risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and judicial review, in Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Vol. 11, pp. 89-138
  • F  Denozza (2000), Discrezione e deferenza: il controllo giudiziario sugli atti delle autorità indipendenti regolatrici, in Merc. Conc. Reg., p. 469
  • R. W. Hahn, J. K. Burnett, I. Yee-Ho Chan, E. A. Mader, P.R. Moyle (2000), Assessing the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analyses, Working Paper n.1, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C.
  • S. G. Calabresit, S. B. Prakash (1994), The President’s Power To Execute the Laws, in The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 104, n. 3, pp. 541-665
  • E. D. Elliot (1994), TQM-ing OMB: Or Why Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12,291 Works Poorly and What President Clinton Should do About It, in Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 57, pp. 171 ss
  • L. Lessig, C. R. Sunstein (1994), The President and the Administration, in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 94, n. 1, pp. 1-121
  • J. H. Howard, L. E. Benfield (1991), Rulemaking in the Shadows: The Rise of OMB and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking, in Columbia Journal Of Environmental Law, Vol. 16, pp. 143-182
  • M. D. McCubbins, R. G. Noll, B. R. Weingast (1987), Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control, in Journal of Law Economics & Organization, VoL 3, n. 2, pp. 243-277
  • C. C. DeMuth, D.H. Ginsburg (1986), White House Review of Agency Rulemaking, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 99, pp. 1075 ss
  • M. B. Garland (1985), Deregulation and judicial review, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 98, n. 3, pp. 505-591
  • B. A. Silverglade (1984), Judicial control of regulatory action based on cost-benefit analysis, in Administrative Law Review, pp. 387-398
  • P. M. Bangser (1983), An inherent role for cost-benefit analysis in judicial review of agency decisions: a new perspective on Osha rulemaking, in Environmental Affairs, Vol. 10, pp. 365-443
  • P. R. Hansen (1983), Making agencies follow orders: judicial review of agency violations of executive order 12,291, in Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1983:285, pp. 285-353
  • P. M. Wald (1983), Judicial Review of Economic Analyses, in Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 1, pp. 43-62
  • C.R. Sunstein (1981), Cost-benefit analysis and the Separation of Powers, in Arizona Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 1276 s
  • S. 0. Rosen (1978), Cost-benefit analysis, judicial review, and the national environmental policy act, in Jurimetrics J., Vol. 19, pp. 28-44
  • D. R. Buntain (1975), Judicial Review of Cost-Benefit. Analysis Under NEPA, in Neb. L. Rev., Vol. 53, pp. 540-1974
  •  M. M. Jr. Egan (1975), Cost-benefit analysis in the courts: Judicial Reviews under NEPA, in Georgia Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 417-453