Đánh giá tác động chính sách đối với DNNVV

chẳng có đâu,

mỹ cũng thế, lười lắm, viết luật mới thì dễ, chứ rà soát luật cũ chẳng bõ :)
One example of such evidence-free (không bằng chứng) regulation (luật lệ) in recent years  (những năm gần đây) comes from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, bộ y tế và dịch vụ nhân sinh mỹ). In 2021, HHS repealed (hủy bỏ, bãi bỏ) a rule (quy tắc) enacted  (ban hành) by the Trump administration (chính quyền) that would have required (yêu cầu, bắt phải) the agency to periodically review (định kỳ rà soát) its regulations for their impact (tác động) on small businesses (doanh nghiệp nhỏ). The measure (biện pháp) was known as the SUNSET rule because it would attach sunset provisions, or expiration dates (ngày hết hiệu lực), to department rules. If the agency failed to conduct a review, the regulation expired.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Ironically, in proposing to rescind (hủy bỏ, thủ tiêu, bãi bỏ) the SUNSET rule, HHS argued that it would be too time consuming (tốn thời gian) and burdensome (nặng nề, phiền toái) for the agency to review all of its regulations. Citing almost no academic work (nghiên cứu) in support of its proposed repeal — a reflection of the anti-consequentialism that animates so much contemporary regulatory policy — the agency effectively asserted that assessing the real-world consequences (kết quả thế giới thực) of its existing rules was far less pressing an issue than addressing the perceived problems of the day (by, of course, issuing more regulations).

Through its actions, HHS has rejected (từ chối) the very notion of having to review its own rules and assess whether they work. In fact, the suggestion that agencies review their regulations is an almost inexplicably (không thể giải thích) divisive issue (vấn đề gây chia rẽ) in Washington today. “Retrospective (hồi tố) review” has become a dirty term (từ bẩn), while cost-benefit analysis (phân tích lợi ích-chi phí) has morphed into a tool to judge intentions rather than predict real-world consequences. The shift highlights how far the modern administrative state has drifted from the rational, evidence-based system envisioned by the law-and-economics movement just a few decades ago.

Here is more.

Post a Comment

Tin liên quan

    Tài chính

    Trung Quốc