미국의 기업관련법제에 대한 입법평가시스템
Evaluating Regulatory Impact System related to Rules and Regulations on the Business in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this Article is to explain how Presidential management of federal regulation, through OMB(The Office of Management and Budget) and Government Accountability Office(GAO) oversight, has been carried out in the United States. First, this paper traces the history of Presidential management of the regulatory state. Second, it also explores the concept of "cost-benefit analysis" and its application to the real process of agency regulations. Finally, this paper explores future and reasonable task that government regulation process in Korea will take. Every President from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush has embraced centralized executive oversight of agency regulations. Even critics of OMB acknowledge the legitimacy of a centralized oversight function. Presidents have found regulatory oversight to be necessary and desirable because: (i)the regulatory state is a permanent part of the legal landscape of the United States; (ii)the economic costs of the regulatory state are substantial; (iii)a consensus is needed when executive branch disagreements about regulation arise; and (iv)federal regulations are often necessary to achieve legislative objectives and implement Presidential priorities and policy objectives. The nature of the U.S. legal is federal state and each state in respect of legislation, and the same is true in the area of corporate regulation. To consider aspects of the modern welfare state perspective, there are a lot of administrative agency regulations in the area. In Korea, National Assembly legislation directly affect the business activities because the country is not the same legal system as in the U.S. So, in legislative activities of the National Assembly as well as in administrative agency regulations it is necessary to conduct a regulatory impact analysis toward the business world.
Abstract
The purpose of this Article is to explain how Presidential management of federal regulation, through OMB(The Office of Management and Budget) and Government Accountability Office(GAO) oversight, has been carried out in the United States. First, this paper traces the history of Presidential management of the regulatory state. Second, it also explores the concept of "cost-benefit analysis" and its application to the real process of agency regulations. Finally, this paper explores future and reasonable task that government regulation process in Korea will take. Every President from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush has embraced centralized executive oversight of agency regulations. Even critics of OMB acknowledge the legitimacy of a centralized oversight function. Presidents have found regulatory oversight to be necessary and desirable because: (i)the regulatory state is a permanent part of the legal landscape of the United States; (ii)the economic costs of the regulatory state are substantial; (iii)a consensus is needed when executive branch disagreements about regulation arise; and (iv)federal regulations are often necessary to achieve legislative objectives and implement Presidential priorities and policy objectives. The nature of the U.S. legal is federal state and each state in respect of legislation, and the same is true in the area of corporate regulation. To consider aspects of the modern welfare state perspective, there are a lot of administrative agency regulations in the area. In Korea, National Assembly legislation directly affect the business activities because the country is not the same legal system as in the U.S. So, in legislative activities of the National Assembly as well as in administrative agency regulations it is necessary to conduct a regulatory impact analysis toward the business world.
참고문헌 (12)
- 박영도, "주요국가의 입법평가 관련제도(Ⅱ)－미국의 규제영향분석제도－" (2007), 한국법제연구원
- Cary Coglianese, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Regulatory Reform", Yale J. on Reg., 25 (2008)
- Charles W. Vernon, "The Inflation Impact Statement Program: An Assessment of the First Two Years", Am. U. L. Rev., 26 (1977)
- Edward R. Morrison, "Judicial Review of Discount Rates Used in Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis", U. Chi. L. Rev., 65 (1998)
- Edward Sherwin, "The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Lessons from the SEC’s Stalled Mutual Fund Reform Effort", Stan. J. L. Bus. & Fin., 12 (2006)
- Matthew D. Adler, "Rethinking Cost-Benefit Analysis", Yale L. J., 109 (1999)
- Richard D. Morgenstern, "Economic Analysis: Benefits, Costs, Implications, in Economic Analyses at EPA" (1997), Assessing Regulatory Impact
- Richard H. Pildes, "Sunstein, Reinventing the Regulatory State", U. Chi. L. Rev., 62 (1995)
- Robert W. Hahn, "A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis", U. PA. L. REV., 150 (2002)
- Robert W. Hahn, "Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the US and Europe", J. Int’l Econ. L., 8 (2005)
- Scott C. Whitney, "The Role of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality in the 1990’s and Beyond", J. Envtl. L. & Litig, 6 (1991)
- Thomas O. McGarity, "A Cost-Benefit State", ADMIN. L. REV., 50 (1998)