ABSTRACT
Regulatory negotiation clearly emerges, moreover, as a superior process for generating information, facilitating learning, and building trust. The consensus-based negotiation increases legitimacy, defined as the acceptability of the regulation to those involved in its development. This chapter presents an original analysis and summary of new empirical evidence from Neil Kerwin and Laura Langbein's two-phase study of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiated rulemakings. The enthusiasts and skeptics continue to test their theories about reg neg against the emerging empirical evidence, the terms of debate remain narrow; virtually none of the studies to date move beyond the measures of time and litigation rates to address the question of legitimacy and quality. The literature on reg neg also identifies as a potential problem EPA's unwillingness to commit, up front, to accept the results of negotiations and use them as the basis for the rule.
