That is an excellent question. I've written about this in my book, and I'll find the right passages for you..but essentially it's culture and incentives. Also see the link to the cascade of rigidity piece.
In my experience in environmental review, the agencies subject to regulations are extremely risk-averse. I wouldn't be surprised if that contributes to the culture (and the incentives always include "don't get sued."
I read an article about why subway construction in NYC is so ridiculously expense. One factor was that state courts have a history of being overly sympathetic to contractors who don't deliver, so the city transport attorneys started writing more and more specific contracts in hopes of being able to hold contractors accountable, but ended up with huge complex contracts that were burdensome but not effective for purpose.
I work for a state-affiliated nonprofit that basically exists because public construction procurement is so broken that the only way to control costs is to do the work outside of government. For example, construction contracts held by my state are structured such that contractors CANNOT lose money unless what they've done is somehow criminal. Screwing up a project literally makes them more money than if they did it right the first time, and the incumbent large contractors spend a lot of money lobbying to keep it that way.
I am obsessed with this question. I can only speak to healthcare but I have long been fascinated by my communityтАЩs complete disinterest in subregulatory guidance, which actually governs how a surveyor interprets the relevant regulations and what the surveyor looks for when they walk in the door. If we are trying to change and improve behavior in healthcare, this is the moment that impacts how a patient is going to be cared for in that setting and the guidance in the surveyorтАЩs hand is what governs it. I really think too many people are divested from implementation and from the moment when the policy touches the person. I donтАЩt know why that is but probably has something to do with the environment around policy and advocacy where people chase the shiny thing (often on the Hill), look for the moment of credit taking, and ignore the rest (and the layers of incentives inside the Executive branch which have been described much better than I ever could).
But why does not each layer, closer to the actual practice, make the reg more flexible?
That is an excellent question. I've written about this in my book, and I'll find the right passages for you..but essentially it's culture and incentives. Also see the link to the cascade of rigidity piece.
In my experience in environmental review, the agencies subject to regulations are extremely risk-averse. I wouldn't be surprised if that contributes to the culture (and the incentives always include "don't get sued."
I read an article about why subway construction in NYC is so ridiculously expense. One factor was that state courts have a history of being overly sympathetic to contractors who don't deliver, so the city transport attorneys started writing more and more specific contracts in hopes of being able to hold contractors accountable, but ended up with huge complex contracts that were burdensome but not effective for purpose.
I work for a state-affiliated nonprofit that basically exists because public construction procurement is so broken that the only way to control costs is to do the work outside of government. For example, construction contracts held by my state are structured such that contractors CANNOT lose money unless what they've done is somehow criminal. Screwing up a project literally makes them more money than if they did it right the first time, and the incumbent large contractors spend a lot of money lobbying to keep it that way.
I used to work in NYC and this totally tracks, unfortunately...
I am obsessed with this question. I can only speak to healthcare but I have long been fascinated by my communityтАЩs complete disinterest in subregulatory guidance, which actually governs how a surveyor interprets the relevant regulations and what the surveyor looks for when they walk in the door. If we are trying to change and improve behavior in healthcare, this is the moment that impacts how a patient is going to be cared for in that setting and the guidance in the surveyorтАЩs hand is what governs it. I really think too many people are divested from implementation and from the moment when the policy touches the person. I donтАЩt know why that is but probably has something to do with the environment around policy and advocacy where people chase the shiny thing (often on the Hill), look for the moment of credit taking, and ignore the rest (and the layers of incentives inside the Executive branch which have been described much better than I ever could).
Risk aversion. Also, the more onerous regulation does not affect the bureaucrat.