Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:34:45.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Law, Judicial Review, and Formal Models of the Regulation Game: A Comment on de Figueiredo & de Figueiredo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason Scott Johnston*
Affiliation:
Program on Law and the Environment, University of Pennsylvania Law Schoolcor1corresp
1

Extract

In “The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation,” (hereafter referred to as LLAR), John and Rui de Figueiredo make an important contribution to our understanding of how interest groups choose between lobbying and litigation strategies in the regulation game. Their work demonstrates the value of formally modeling the regulation game by distinguishing between lobbying and litigation. Drawing upon my own related work, in this brief comment I will focus upon some of the implications of formal models of lobbying and litigation for our understanding of how regulatory incentives are affected by judicial review and alternative statutory regimes. I hope to atleast suggest that in addition to illuminating many crucial issues in political science—such as the theory of lobbying and theories of political disadvantage—the sort of approach taken by the de Figueiredos has great significance for the analysis of some fundamental issues in administrative law and public law more generally.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2002 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Figueiredo, John M. and de Figueiredo, Rui J. 2002. “The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation, and Administrative Regulation,Business and Politics 4 (2): 161181.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. and Shipan, Charles F. 1989. “Congressional Influence on the Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 6: 127.Google Scholar
Johnston, Jason Scott. 2002. “A Game Theoretic Analysis of Alternative Institutions for Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger and Weingast, Barry R. 1994. “Legislative Intent: The Use of Positive Political Theory in Statutory Interpretation.” Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 337.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T. and Gely, Rafael. 1992. “Congressional Control of Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988.” Rand Journal of Economics 23: 463492.Google Scholar
Tiller, Emerson H. 2002. “Resource Based Strategies in Law and Positive Political Theory: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Like,University of Pennsylvania Law Review.Google Scholar