This paper addresses the following question: how frequently do cities use government regulation of land use to coerce environmentally friendly development? In particular, the paper focuses on minimum density requirements, maximum parking requirements, and laws requiring “green” building (usually buildings that include a variety of energy-conserving features). The article concludes that the first type of regulation is rare, while the latter two are somewhat more frequent.
Simply counting executive orders, pages, or words can produce misleading statistics. In legal language, at least, the frequency with which restrictions occur can serve as a proxy for measuring the overall restrictiveness of text. Content matters.
As the battle to trim American waistlines heats up, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has joined in the fray with not one, but two rules aimed at improving the nation’s diet. The rules constitute the biggest change to the Nutrition Facts label in over two decades.
This week’s charts use data from the Subsidy Tracker 2.0 dataset compiled by Good Jobs First, a government accountability and smart-growth advocacy group, to display the states (plus the District of Columbia) that disperse the highest amounts and numbers of subsidies, along with the top parent corporations that cumulatively benefit from these subsidies.
Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia prohibit entry or expansion of healthcare facilities through “certificate-of-need” (CON) programs. These laws, which require government permission before a facility can expand, offer a new service, or purchase certain pieces of equipment, were enacted in the belief that restricting entry would lower health care costs and increase availability of these services to the poor.
This paper provides the first examination of the relationship between eminent domain activity and the growth (and level) of state and local revenue. We restrict our attention to takings that are for private use, such as the one that led to the landmark Kelo decision in 2005.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes several types of incentives that will affect work schedules. The largest of them are (1) an explicit penalty on employers who do not offer coverage to their full-time employees; (2) an implicit tax on full-time employment, stemming from the fact that full-time employees at employers that offer affordable coverage are ineligible to receive subsidies on the law’s new health insurance exchanges; and (3) an implicit tax on earnings, stemming from the provisions of the law that give lower subsidies to those with higher incomes.
The federal government’s own tips for submitting effective comments in regulatory proceedings note, “A constructive, information-rich comment that clearly communicates and supports its claims is more likely to have an impact on regulatory decision-making.” This guide explains how to prepare a comment on a proposed regulation, using economic analysis that supports each claim.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently proposed expanding its regulatory authority over tobacco products to include the regulation of cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), and other novel tobacco products such as dissolvable products and gels. Cigars are the most commonly used among this group, though e-cigarette use is rapidly expanding.
Please join us for a lunch on Thursday, November 6th, with Mercatus senior research fellow Robert Graboyes. Dr. Graboyes specializes in healthcare economics and will discuss the fiscal realities of the Affordable Care Act.
Please join us for a lunch on Friday, November 7th, with Mercatus senior research fellow Robert Graboyes. Dr. Graboyes specializes in healthcare economics and will discuss the fiscal realities of the Affordable Care Act.