Do federal regulations beget innovation? Legislative policy and the role of executive orders

Energy Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 112570
Author(s):  
Olga Smirnova ◽  
Deborah Strumsky ◽  
Ashley C. Qualls
Author(s):  
Andrew Rudalevige

The president of the United States is commonly thought to wield extraordinary personal power through the issuance of executive orders. In fact, the vast majority of such orders are proposed by federal agencies and shaped by negotiations that span the executive branch. This book provides the first comprehensive look at how presidential directives are written — and by whom. The book examines more than five hundred executive orders from the 1930s to today — as well as more than two hundred others negotiated but never issued — shedding vital new light on the multilateral process of drafting supposedly unilateral directives. The book draws on a wealth of archival evidence from the Office of Management and Budget and presidential libraries as well as original interviews to show how the crafting of orders requires widespread consultation and compromise with a formidable bureaucracy. It explains the key role of management in the presidential skill set, detailing how bureaucratic resistance can stall and even prevent actions the chief executive desires, and how presidents must bargain with the bureaucracy even when they seek to act unilaterally. Challenging popular conceptions about the scope of presidential power, the book reveals how the executive branch holds the power to both enact and constrain the president's will.


1983 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 828-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Bosso

Concern with the rights and welfare of human experimental research subjects has given rise to the evolution of institutional review boards. This article describes the basic composition and purposes of these boards, as well as the federal regulations by which they are governed. Since many of these regulations are open to interpretation, the policies and procedures of one such board are included to represent an example of how these regulations are interpreted and applied.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-43
Author(s):  
Marina Kostolomova

The article is devoted to the topical topic of the fourth industrial revolution, which every member of society is witnessing and participating in today. The author analyzes the process of forming a new social reality and notes its ambiguous nature. On the one hand, there are obvious innovative breakthroughs in many areas of life that can significantly "improve" human (not only social) existence. On the other hand, the contradictions and paradoxes of such a "brave new world" are exponentially increasing, "deferred" challenges and risks are being formed, moral and ethical algorithms of social interaction are being transformed. The author focuses on the fact that today humanity, in order to form a balanced and safe social environment, needs to delve into the essence of the process of the fourth industrial revolution. To do this, it is necessary not just to comprehend their upcoming scientific and technological "steps", but equally those profound changes that have already been launched. In addition, the article also notes the special role of the COVID-19 pandemic, which, according to many researchers, has forever changed the usual societal contours, forming a kind of "post-pandemic" social reality. The paper analyzes the uniqueness of the situation of "layering" of two transformational processes – the expansion of the fourth industrial revolution and the reformatting of being by the COVID-19 virus. In view of this, as the author notes, a person begins practically, at the level of everyday life, to face an increasing volume of changes generated by these processes, as well as to experience fear of the future and a permanent state of anxiety. Therefore, in the modern social reality, there is an adequate demand for the formation of a "response" to new, including digital challenges and risks, as well as in the strategic development of regulatory and adaptive measures. The author substantiates the need to develop a strategy for techno-digital security and include it in the relevant federal regulations.


1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Duane Lockard

Although there is a voluminous literature on the organization and procedure of state legislatures, material on their politics is relatively sparse. The classic work of A. Lawrence Lowell, now more than a half-century old, still appears to be the chief reliance of scholars in the field. Lowell's thesis was that parties were relatively insignificant in state legislatures; virtually the whole of the subsequent literature agrees with this. In the case of the Connecticut legislature, it would seem that parties, far from being relatively insignificant, play a dominating role.The study of party influence in a legislature necessitates a two-level approach: analysis of the role of the party leadership and of the voting behavior of the party membership. Several questions must be answered with regard to the party leadership. Are the party leaders an identifiable and cohesive group? Do they develop a definite program for legislative consideration? Is their authority shared with factional leaders capable of frequent disruption of the party program? Are committee chairmen or party leaders in the stronger position for actually forming legislative policy? Do pressure group leaders work through the formal party leaders or do they attempt to build ad hoc legislative majorities for their bills through independent action?


Author(s):  
Natalia Rybalko ◽  

Introduction. The process of forming zemstvo militias in defense of Tsar V.I. Shuisky and the whole country in the Moscow state began in late 1608 – early 1609 at the height of the confrontation between the Moscow and Tushino political regimes. The article examines the role of the government of V.I. Shuisky in governing the state, in particular, Perm the Great, and the participation of this remote region in military affairs. Researchers have merely addressed this aspect and come to opposite judgments. Methods and materials. We have a large complex of zemstvo correspondence at our disposal, preserved in the archives of the Solikamsk district court. Many documents were published as early as the 19th century but their detailed analysis was not carried out. Clarification of the dating and reconstruction of information both about the documents that have come down to us and the documents only mentioned, the introduction of unpublished acts into circulation allows us to restore the true picture of events. A fund-by-fund study was carried out by the method of mutual correspondence of documents. Analysis. In the course of the research, it was revealed that the first of the initiative documents that reached the Great Perm about the support of Tsar V.I. Shuisky in military affairs were formal replies from Galich and Vologda. Perm clerks F.P. Akinfov and N. Romanov received them on December 15, 1608, and they were read by the whole world. Active gatherings of military men in Perm the Great began only after January 1, 1609, when a list with a sovereign letter was brought to the Galicians. At that time the territory of Perm the Great consisted of 3 counties: Cherdyn, Solikamsk, Kaigorod. By January 10, 1609, the first gathering ended and 20 military men of Soli Kamskaya left on the way to Moscow. In Kaigorodok they were robbed, carts and weapons were taken away, the headman and worldly people did not give new carts in the ship’s hut, as a result they could not continue their journey, and there was a delay. In February, together with 20 Kaigorod military men, they moved on. On March 1, 1609, 50 Cherdynians left Perm the Great. The war men of Perm the Great came to Vologda at the end of March 1609 and were assigned to further service in the militia. Results. The article shows that the complete blockade of Moscow in the fall of 1608 did not materialize. However, regular communication between Moscow and the cities of Pomorie was disrupted. For the period from January 1 to mid-April 1609 in Perm the Great on behalf of Tsar V.I. Shuisky received 5 decree letters from the Novgorod discharge order on the issue of collecting military men and sending them to Moscow to fight the Tushin people, and 3 executive orders from the Novgorod quarter order on the sovereign’s treasury and sending bread to Siberian cities for salaries to service people. These documents were direct orders of the supreme power and were perceived by the order people in Perm the Great as a guide to action. In addition to them, the zemstvo correspondence with the nearest cities made it possible to find out news about the military events taking place in the country. The clerk Fedor Petrovich Akinfov and the clerk Naum Romanov tried to carry out the orders of the tsar, but they did not always manage to do this as quickly as was expected of them. There is no reason to consider the resulting delay in the dispatch of the Perm military men as unwillingness of the orderly people appointed from Moscow for 2–3 years to participate in the support of Tsar V. Shuisky and the Zemstvo movement. The delay is more likely due to the lack of clear administrative management at the local level: if in Soli Kamskoy they quickly responded to the request and sent 20 military men, then in Kaigorodok they began to put up obstacles not only in the form of robbery, but also at the level of mundane self-government, not obeying the regional leadership.


Author(s):  
Mikhail Vladimirovich Krichevtsev

This article questions the opinion established in modern French historiography on implementation of life sentence as a criminal punishment under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte (in accordance with the Criminal Code of 1810). Leaning on examination of legislative, policy drafting, and court materials, the author traces the evolution of the system of criminal penalties associated with incarceration. and determines the role of life sentence therein – since the adoption of first criminal laws in the era Great Revolution until the revision Napoleonic Criminal Code in 1832, and the court of Peers under Louis-Philippe I. The acquires materials demonstrate that after long absence of the  Consulate and Early Empire in the time of Revolution,  life sentence was envisaged by the Criminal Code of 1810 as an alternative measure to penal servitude for life or deportation (for criminals of senior age), rather than an separate type of criminal punishment. Reference to the practice of the court of Peers during the Restoration and the July Monarchy suggests that life sentence became a separate type of criminal punishment only with the advent of verdict passed by Peers with regards to 1830 case of former ministers. This sentence was based on the combination of legislative and court functions in actions of the Chamber of Peers as higher justice authority, and thus was of constitutive nature. The conclusion is made that the implementation of life sentence in French criminal law should be attributed to the time of the July Monarchy rather than the ruling of Napoleon Bonaparte.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document