| dc.contributor.author |
Coglianese, Cary |
en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2009-07-31T15:00:03Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2009-07-31T15:00:03Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
1997 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2009-03-17 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2009-03-17 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/3347 |
|
| dc.description.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." |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
consensus--research |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
negotiation--research |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
regulation--research |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
rules--research |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
published |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.region |
North America |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.country |
United States |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Theory |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationjournal |
Duke Law Journal |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationvolume |
46 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationnumber |
6 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationmonth |
January |
en_US |