Many federal government decisions that affect Americans’ day-to-day lives are made by agencies. Agency decisions, therefore, should maximize net benefits to society. For over 37 years, every president has directed executive agencies to do that through a cost-benefit decisional rule. However, regulatory agencies have sometimes interpreted their authorizing statutes to limit or prohibit this approach, and they may enjoy deference from courts when doing so. Many regulatory experts, including the current Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, have expressed concern over agencies’ failure to ensure that their decisions do more good than harm.
How do we guarantee that all executive and independent agencies are accountable for their actions, while preserving needed insulation from overbearing political pressure? Does the answer change depending on the mission of the particular agency? Are there problems with the cost-benefit analysis model that create opportunities for agencies to manipulate and justify their actions?

Hon. Steven G. Bradubury, General Counsel, United States Department of Transportation
Dr. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
Prof. Catherine M. Sharkey, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, New York University Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit