000			01709naa a2200193uu 4500
001			11557
003			OSt
005			20190211155518.0
008			030226s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aLANGBEIN, Laura I _95861
245	1	0	_aRegulatory negotiation versus conventional rule making : _bclaims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence
260			_cjul. 2000
520	3		_aBased on a survey of participants in eight negotiated rule makings at the Environmental Protection Agency and in six comparable conventional EPA rule makings, we find that, when the rule is negotiated, there is greater satifaction with the substance of the final rule (e.g., net benefits to the respondent's organization, general effectiveness/efficiency) and with the overall process. Participants in negotiated rules also learn more, but they face higher costs. Rules selected for negotiation appear more complex and involve detailed issues of compliance. There is no difference between the rule makings in the perceived net benefits of participation, in the perception of parties being left our or a party with disproportionate influence, in the overall responsiveness of EPA to public participation, or in the amount of litigation. The results are consistent with theoretical arguments that support the benefits of face-to-face negotiation among affected parties under certain circumstances, but they leave important questions about efficiency and equity unanswered
700	1		_aKERWIN, Cornelius M _920354
773	0	8	_tJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory _g10, 3, p. 599-632 _d, jul. 2000 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20030226 _bLucima _cLucimara
998			_a20060210 _b1606^b _cQuiteria
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c11680 _d11680
041			_aeng