[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp03-037.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Building Sector-Based Consensus: A Review of the EPA's Common Sense Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Coglianese, Cary

    (Harvard U)

  • Allen, Laurie K.

    (Harvard U)

Abstract
In the late 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted what the agency considered to be a "bold experiment" in regulatory reinvention, bringing representatives from six industrial sectors together with government officials and NGO representatives to forge a consensus on innovations in public policy and business practices. This paper assesses the impact of the agency's "experiment" -- called the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) -- in terms of the agency's goals of improving regulatory performance and technological innovation. Based on a review of CSI projects across all six sectors, the paper shows how EPA achieved, at best, quite modest accomplishments. The paper explains how EPA's decision to rely on consensus as a procedural rule contributed to CSI's failure to meet the agency's ambitious goals. Faced with delays, CSI participants tended to work on projects over which agreement was possible, such as on the development of training manuals or production of case studies, instead of tackling more significant issues. These information-gathering and educational projects avoided the kind of conflicts that would have arisen over more ambitious efforts, but at the expense of making more meaningful economic or environmental improvement. The EPA's experience with CSI provides cautionary lessons for regulators in any policy area who might contemplate using consensus as a decision rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Coglianese, Cary & Allen, Laurie K., 2003. "Building Sector-Based Consensus: A Review of the EPA's Common Sense Initiative," Working Paper Series rwp03-037, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp03-037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=94
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    2. Coglianese, Cary, 2001. "Is Consensus an Appropriate Basis for Regulatory Policy?," Working Paper Series rwp01-012, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Coglianese, Cary, 2002. "Empirical Analysis and Administrative Law," Working Paper Series rwp02-035, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kristan Cockerill & Lacy Daniel & Leonard Malczynski & Vincent Tidwell, 2009. "A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 211-225, August.
    2. James Agbodzakey, 2012. "Collaborative Governance of HIV Health Services Planning Councils in Broward and Palm Beach Counties of South Florida," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 107-126, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McLaughlin, Patrick & Potts, Jason, 2019. "RegData: Australia," Working Papers 10062, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    3. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    4. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Luc Thiébaut, 2004. "Les instruments volontaires :. Un nouveau mode de régulation de l'environnement ?," Revue internationale de droit économique, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 461-481.
    5. Melinda L. Kimble, 2020. "The Science-Policy Nexus: U.S. Policy and International Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Patrick A. McLaughlin & Oliver Sherouse, 2019. "RegData 2.2: a panel dataset on US federal regulations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 43-55, July.
    7. Tilmann Rave, 2005. "Contextualising And Conceptualising The Reform Of Environmentally Harmful Subsidies In Germany," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 619-650.
    8. Bozanic, Zahn & Dirsmith, Mark W. & Huddart, Steven, 2012. "The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading laws," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 461-481.
    9. Timothy Cadman & Lauren Eastwood & Federico Lopez-Casero Michaelis & Tek N. Maraseni & Jamie Pittock & Tapan Sarker, 2015. "The Political Economy of Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15773.
    10. Daniel H. Cole & Elizabeth Baldwin & Katie Meehan, 2021. "Goldilocks Deference?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 167-188, March.
    11. Omar Al‐Ubaydli & Patrick A. McLaughlin, 2017. "RegData: A numerical database on industry‐specific regulations for all United States industries and federal regulations, 1997–2012," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 109-123, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp03-037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.