Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking

Found at: https://hdl.handle.net/10535/3347
PDF
Type:	Journal Article
Author:	Coglianese, Cary
Journal:	Duke Law Journal
Volume:	46
Page(s):
Date:	1997
URI:	https://hdl.handle.net/10535/3347
Sector:	Theory
Region:	North America
Subject(s):	consensus--research negotiation--research regulation--research rules--research
Abstract:	"Negotiated rulemaking was introduced more prominently in the early 1980s as a way of curing a malaise that some thought characterized federal rulemaking practice at the time. This malaise was attributed to the time and expense of rulemaking, as well as the amount of conflict and litigation over agency rules. According to Philip Harters 1982 report to ACUS on negotiated rulemaking, the process of negotiating rules could reduce conflict, improve the exchange of information, decrease the length and cost of rulemaking, and overall lead to more effective and legitimate regulations. Proponents alleged that if used in appropriate cases, negotiated rulemaking should eliminate major controversy during the period after publication of the notice, unlike the hybrid rulemaking process in which the notice is an invitation to fight."

Files in this item

Files	Size	Format	View
Duke_Law_Journal__Cary_Cogl...pdf	493.2Kb	PDF	View/Open