Too Many Regulations?
That is the question I address in my latest Hill column:
Click here for reuse options!Businesses face a myriad of requirements from federal, state, county and local governments. Many of these regulations produce benefits that justify the cost of compliance. But collectively they may impose a hidden cost that could deter businesses from opening or stifle their growth. Regulatory reform efforts may be more successful if they facilitate the examination of the many already existing regulations, rather than focusing on adding new duplicative requirements for agencies to follow when they promulgate new regulations.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
20 responses to Too Many Regulations?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
MarcoZandrini September 29th, 2014 at 11:14
Local, state and federal laws need to be looked at and integrated holistically.
MarcoZandrini September 29th, 2014 at 11:14
Local, state and federal laws need to be looked at and integrated holistically.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 12:03
Unless businesses can make specific and credible claims that regulations harm them and produce no public good or worker safety, this is a red herring argument. Is is the camel’s nose that the right uses to dismantle government.
And, only people who have never started a business, or simply want to destroy it, argue that regulations impede business creation. People who start businesses do so because of their interest in being self employed, or their dedication to an idea, not because of a lack of regulation.
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 13:19
Agreed, it’s a specious argument. Even more importantly, people, like myself for example, start businesses because they see demand for a service or widget. Regulations are irrelevant and just become part of the cost of doing business.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 13:23
Congratulations on starting a business, I hope that you are doing well with it!
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 14:05
Well, it comes and goes. I ran my own sole proprietorship for 3+ years, adding one other consultant who worked with me after the first year. One of my clients essentially “bought me out” and made me an employee, so I set it aside. I could easily revive it if my situation changes. I still believe however, that businesses grow when there’s demand. Regulations, wages, benefits become secondary. If the demand is there, the business will grow, if not, it won’t.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 14:16
It still takes someone with the courage to see and fill the demand. And, you’re right, the rest is secondary, at most, to building a business.
Continued good success to you!
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 17:56
Thank you. I certainly didn’t think it was courageous but something had to be done to pay the bills!
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 19:14
That can sometimes be the most courageous thing of all.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 12:03
Unless businesses can make specific and credible claims that regulations harm them and produce no public good or worker safety, this is a red herring argument. Is is the camel’s nose that the right uses to dismantle government.
And, only people who have never started a business, or simply want to destroy it, argue that regulations impede business creation. People who start businesses do so because of their interest in being self employed, or their dedication to an idea, not because of a lack of regulation.
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 13:19
Agreed, it’s a specious argument. Even more importantly, people, like myself for example, start businesses because they see demand for a service or widget. Regulations are irrelevant and just become part of the cost of doing business.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 13:23
Congratulations on starting a business, I hope that you are doing well with it!
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 14:05
Well, it comes and goes. I ran my own sole proprietorship for 3+ years, adding one other consultant who worked with me after the first year. One of my clients essentially “bought me out” and made me an employee, so I set it aside. I could easily revive it if my situation changes. I still believe however, that businesses grow when there’s demand. Regulations, wages, benefits become secondary. If the demand is there, the business will grow, if not, it won’t.
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 14:16
It still takes someone with the courage to see and fill the demand. And, you’re right, the rest is secondary, at most, to building a business.
Continued good success to you!
Roctuna September 29th, 2014 at 17:56
Thank you. I certainly didn’t think it was courageous but something had to be done to pay the bills!
tiredoftea September 29th, 2014 at 19:14
That can sometimes be the most courageous thing of all.
Dwendt44 September 29th, 2014 at 18:53
Clearly some laws and regulations are needed. Some laws need a sunset clause. And some need serious reform-some laws are long past repeal and others that overlap could be combined.
Just don’t let a partisan hack do the re-write.
Dwendt44 September 29th, 2014 at 18:53
Clearly some laws and regulations are needed. Some laws need a sunset clause. And some need serious reform-some laws are long past repeal and others that overlap could be combined.
Just don’t let a partisan hack do the re-write.
burqa September 29th, 2014 at 22:21
The OP sounds great in a theoretical sense, but really, regulations have to be taken individually and before getting rid of one we should find out why it was enacted in the first place.
I work in one of the most dangerous industries – construction. There are many building code regulations I must meet and many safety regulations, too. At times some of these seem ridiculous, but when we look back we find some dunce did something outrageously stupid and a regulation had to be enacted to prevent it from happening again.
In a number of cases the cost-benefit argument does not apply, such as with many safety regulations, or those that concern disposal of hazardous materials.
The building industry has spent untold millions to purchase political influence. The result has been changes to building codes that make it possible for houses to burn more quickly, endangering residents and firefighters. Other changes they have gotten passed have made it so that even these bigass 4- and 5,000 square foot Mcmansions will last about as long as your typical doublewide trailer.
I do a lot of work on structures over 100 years old, and many of them were considered historic. It’s really something to see structures built by barely literate people with hand tools that last longer and function better than modern buildings.
I live in an old farmhouse built a hundred years ago that is shaded by oak trees that must be over 150 years old and the layout makes this home comfortable in the summer during all but the hottest days, when I turn on a fan. This year I needed to turn on a fan less than a dozen times.
burqa September 29th, 2014 at 22:21
The OP sounds great in a theoretical sense, but really, regulations have to be taken individually and before getting rid of one we should find out why it was enacted in the first place.
I work in one of the most dangerous industries – construction. There are many building code regulations I must meet and many safety regulations, too. At times some of these seem ridiculous, but when we look back we find some dunce did something outrageously stupid and a regulation had to be enacted to prevent it from happening again.
In a number of cases the cost-benefit argument does not apply, such as with many safety regulations, or those that concern disposal of hazardous materials.
The building industry has spent untold millions to purchase political influence. The result has been changes to building codes that make it possible for houses to burn more quickly, endangering residents and firefighters. Other changes they have gotten passed have made it so that even these bigass 4- and 5,000 square foot Mcmansions will last about as long as your typical doublewide trailer.
I do a lot of work on structures over 100 years old, and many of them were considered historic. It’s really something to see structures built by barely literate people with hand tools that last longer and function better than modern buildings.
I live in an old farmhouse built a hundred years ago that is shaded by oak trees that must be over 150 years old and the layout makes this home comfortable in the summer during all but the hottest days, when I turn on a fan. This year I needed to turn on a fan less than a dozen times.