Rebuttal of Reply to Our Paper “The Curious Absence of Economic Analysis at the Federal Communications Commission: An Agency in Search of a Mission"
Rebuttal of Reply to Our Paper “The Curious Absence of Economic Analysis at the Federal Communications Commission: An Agency in Search of a Mission"
复制标题
对我们论文“联邦通信委员会奇怪地缺乏经济分析：一个寻求使命的机构”的反驳
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Augustus H. Urschel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gerald R. Faulhaber;Hal J. Singer;Augustus H. Urschel
根据联邦通信委员会（FCC）的经济分析，过去的法规对美国经济产生了积极的影响：从开放长途电话市场，到使增强型数据互联网服务的扩散，再到刺激新的无线市场的增长。在过去的几年里，联邦通信委员会未能将其法规建立在经济推理的基础上，这导致了低效的政策和提案，这些政策和提案可能会破坏先前的利益。美国联邦通信委员会2015年《开放互联网令》（Open Internet Order）的决议阐明了政策制定者面临的困境：考虑到华盛顿特区联邦上诉法院愿意听从联邦通信委员会在政策方面的专业知识，考虑到联邦通信委员会在考虑新法规时愿意回避计量经济学证据和经济理论，将经济学重新注入联邦通信委员会政策制定的最直接方法是通过国会授权。没有理由要求劳工部、环境保护署、消费者金融保护局和许多其他机构进行成本效益分析，而联邦通信委员会却可以自由地接受民粹主义作为其指导原则。
Past regulations informed by economic analysis at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have positively affected the U.S. economy: from opening long-distance telephone markets, to enabling the proliferation of enhanced data Internet services, to spurring the growth of new wireless markets. The failure of the FCC to ground its regulations in economic reasoning in the past few years has led to inefficient policies and proposals that threaten to eviscerate prior benefits. The resolution of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order illuminates the quagmire for policymakers: Given the D.C. Circuit’s willingness to defer to the FCC’s expertise in policy, and given the FCC’s willingness to eschew econometric evidence and economic theory as it considers new regulations, the most direct way to reinject economics into FCC policymaking is via a Congressional mandate. There is no reason why the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and a host of other agencies should be required to perform cost–benefit analysis, while the FCC is free to embrace populism as its guiding principle.