Ensuring Durability and Objectivity in Regulatory Analysis: Comments on OMB Circular A-4

Abstract This article is based on feedback I submitted in response to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) April 2023 request for comments on its draft revisions to Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis.” Much has changed since I submitted my comments in June 2023. OMB issued a final circular in November 2023 and subsequently rescinded it in February 2025. This article includes my comments as submitted, along with an introductory “prologue” and an “epilogue” that reflects on the decision to abandon the 2023 revisions and return to the 2003 Circular. My comment addressed key elements of regulatory analysis, suggested areas where OMB could provide more guidance, and identified several aspects of the 2023 Circular that appeared to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. It concluded that some of the 2023 revisions were worthwhile, while others would have obfuscated for policymakers important information on the welfare effects of regulatory actions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.16
Primary Topic
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ensuring Durability and Objectivity in Regulatory Analysis: Comments on OMB Circular A-4

Susan E. Dudley
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
article

Ensuring Durability and Objectivity in Regulatory Analysis: Comments on OMB Circular A-4

Susan E. Dudley
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article is based on feedback I submitted in response to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) April 2023 request for comments on its draft revisions to Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis.” Much has changed since I submitted my comments in June 2023. OMB issued a final circular in November 2023 and subsequently rescinded it in February 2025. This article includes my comments as submitted, along with an introductory “prologue” and an “epilogue” that reflects on the decision to abandon the 2023 revisions and return to the 2003 Circular. My comment addressed key elements of regulatory analysis, suggested areas where OMB could provide more guidance, and identified several aspects of the 2023 Circular that appeared to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. It concluded that some of the 2023 revisions were worthwhile, while others would have obfuscated for policymakers important information on the welfare effects of regulatory actions.

Journal of Benefit-Cost AnalysisVol. 16(S2)
Public Policy Institute of California (US), George Washington University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Ensuring Durability and Objectivity in Regulatory Analysis: Comments on OMB Circular A-4 — Susan E. Dudley · Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS