Abstract
Introduction: Debates over regulatory policy focus both on the substance of regulations and on the nature of the regulatory process. Despite the often strident nature of these debates, there are several propositions that generate widespread agreement. Few would argue that the substance of regulations has been dramatically different in the George W. Bush Administration than in that of Bill Clinton. And while the merits of various aspects of the regulatory process are the subject of considerable debate, the vigor with which these debates are carried out is evidence of agreement that the process is important. Despite the perceived importance of the regulatory process in affecting regulatory substance, large-scale empirical examinations of the process are limited. In particular, we have little idea how the regulatory process varies with changes in regulatory substance. Does the process look very different in a presidential administration that has a pro-regulatory outlook than in one that favors deregulation? This article is a large-scale empirical examination of the role of procedural controls in the rulemaking process. I compare variables characterizing the regulatory process from analogous periods in the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. It is well documented that the regulatory preferences of these two presidents are quite different. Despite this, I find that the regulatory process is remarkably similar between the Clinton and Bush administrations. I looked at more than 900 regulations issued by the two administrations. The administrations received similar numbers of comments on their rules, bypassed the public comment process at similar ...