|
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Regulation v. Competitiveness
We note with interest that the House Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on competitiveness. At such times, it is de rigeur for industry to argue that regulatory protections of the public health, safety, and environment are a burden on American businesses that keep them from being competitive in a global market. In anticipation of such arguments being rehashed in tomorrow's hearing, we offer these reminders that the business arguments are bunk:
- OMB Watch Issue Brief: Regulation and Competitiveness
This issue brief reviews the plethora of economic studies revealing that the regulation/competitiveness tradeoff is a myth. Economic indicators of competitiveness impacts (plant location decisions, foreign investment patterns, and trade flows in pollution-intensive industries) fail to show a negative relationship between competitiveness and environmental and workplace protections. Regulation does not cost us jobs; instead, regulatory protections can create new jobs, while leading to other economic benefits for American businesses.
- OMB Watch Fact Sheet: The Going-Out-of-Business Myth
Industry often fights proposed protections by arguing that the new standards will break the bank. The Going-Out-of-Business Myth is a compilation of the many case studies in which industry estimates of the compliance costs proved to be wildly overblown — and in which the new standards actually led to more efficient operations.
- OMB Watch Analysis: Why Performance Standards May Be Superior to Cap-and-Trade
A popular industry tactic is to argue that market-styled mechanisms do a better job than fair, across-the-board standards. New scholarship reveals that the underlying assumptions of this argument do not make economic sense.
In light of what we know about the economic benefits to be had from strong protections of the public health, safety,and environment, it really is long past time to drive a stake in the heart of the industry anti-regulatory argument and embrace sensible safeguards of the public interest.
Posted by Robert Shull
|