Abstract
The rhetoric surrounding regulatory reform has long been heated. Supporters talk about making regulation more efficient and regulators more accountable to the public. Opponents blame regulatory reforms for crippling the regulatory process and inhibiting the production of regulations that will protect public health. This Article uses a data set of regulations and regulatory reforms in twenty-eight states to question both of these positions. We find that reforms such as executive review of regulations, legislative review of regulations, and economic analysis have 1o relationship with regulatory output. Instead, political factors, particularly the control of the state legislature, are a much better predictor of the volume of regulation in a state. If a legislature passes laws that require regulations, there will be more regulations regardless of the procedural hurdles that regulatory agencies face when engaging in the regulatory process.