Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?

57 Pages Posted: 10 May 2006

See all articles by David M. Driesen

David M. Driesen

Syracuse University College of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Abstract

This article explores the question of whether contemporary regulatory reformers' attitudes toward government regulation have anything in common with those of the Lochner-era Court. It finds that both groups tend to favor value neutral law guided by cost-benefit analysis over legislative value choices. Their skepticism toward redistributive legislation reflects shared beliefs that regulation often proves counterproductive in terms of its own objectives, fails demanding tests for rationality, and violates the natural order. This parallelism raises fresh questions about claims of neutrality and heightened rationality that serve as important justifications modern regulatory reform.

Keywords: regulatory reform, cost-benefit analysis, Lochner, Lochnerism, neutrality, Lochner-era, rationality, natural law, regulation

JEL Classification: D61, D73, I18, K32

Suggested Citation

Driesen, David M., Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?. Environmental Law, Vol. 36, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=900447

David M. Driesen (Contact Author)

Syracuse University College of Law ( email )

Dineen Hall
950 Irving Ave.
Syracuse, NY, NY 13244
United States
315-443-4218 (Phone)
315-443-4141 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/facultymember.asp?fac=12

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
99
Abstract Views
930
Rank
230,544
PlumX Metrics