Image Database Export Citations


Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking

Show simple item record

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

Files in this item

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

This item appears in the following document type(s)

Show simple item record