CHEERS greeted Barack Obamas hiring of CassSunstein away from the University of Chicago. MrSunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge oflifting the heavy hand of regulation from Americaseconomy. Known for his clever economics, MrSunstein favours a libertarian paternalismpolicies that nudge, but do not force, people to dothe right things. For example, making people optout instead of opting in to pension plans makesmany more sign up, to their benefit. And MrSunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiencystickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

　　奧巴馬從芝加哥大學(xué)挖來了凱斯?桑斯坦，此舉讓人歡欣鼓舞。桑斯坦律師現(xiàn)在是白宮信息和監(jiān)管事務(wù)辦公室主任，負(fù)責(zé)降低監(jiān)管對(duì)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的干預(yù)力度。桑斯坦因其睿智的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)思想而名滿天下，并且信奉對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)應(yīng)持家長式的自由管理態(tài)度;他認(rèn)為政策應(yīng)該引導(dǎo)，而不是強(qiáng)制人民去做正確的事情。比如說，讓人民選擇是否放棄而不是選擇是否加入退休金計(jì)劃使得更多人參與該計(jì)劃，并最終讓他們自身受益。桑斯坦還參與了飲食建議與汽車燃油效能標(biāo)簽的重新設(shè)計(jì)，使得之前混亂的信息更易于理解。

　　Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obamatelling every agency to slimits rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580proposals received from the departments under his purview. And he says real savings are onthe way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems willsave $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in theMedicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies haveresponded not grudgingly , but eagerly.

　　桑斯坦現(xiàn)在負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督一年前奧巴馬總統(tǒng)頒布的行政命令，該命令要求各有關(guān)部門精簡(jiǎn)其規(guī)章制度。桑斯坦表示所有部門都執(zhí)行了該法令，并且他管轄的部門已經(jīng)上交了580份提案。他表示更切實(shí)有效的節(jié)省計(jì)劃即將展開。要求各州配備污染蒸汽回收系統(tǒng)的措施可以在未來五年內(nèi)節(jié)約4億美元。讓醫(yī)生和醫(yī)院更方便參與老年人的美國聯(lián)邦醫(yī)療計(jì)劃的舉措可以節(jié)約約50億美元。桑斯坦補(bǔ)充說，各級(jí)部門并不是勉強(qiáng)應(yīng)付該行政令，而是予以積極配合。

　　But the Obama administration has added to the rulebook at the same time as it istrimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. InGeorge Bushs first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits thancosts, as the agencies economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. Theoverall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study forthe Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008,though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the WorldBank, which one of the banks researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it asan urban myth.

　　但是奧巴馬政府在精簡(jiǎn)法規(guī)的同時(shí)又在對(duì)法規(guī)進(jìn)行增補(bǔ)，增補(bǔ)的許多法規(guī)都規(guī)模甚大：其中有194項(xiàng)經(jīng)濟(jì)影響超過1億美元的法規(guī)都已在聯(lián)邦公報(bào)上公布。在喬治布什政府上臺(tái)的前三年，類似的法規(guī)有141項(xiàng)。甚至即使大多數(shù)法規(guī)帶來的利益都高于其成本，監(jiān)管的范圍仍然沒有縮減。監(jiān)管的總成本仍是個(gè)未知數(shù)，計(jì)算方法也飽受爭(zhēng)議。一項(xiàng)對(duì)于小型企業(yè)管理局的研究表明2008年僅不完全統(tǒng)計(jì)分析的監(jiān)管成本就高達(dá)1.75萬億美元，該統(tǒng)計(jì)基于世界銀行研究出的分析方法，但該銀行的研究人員表示該方法其實(shí)并不適用于此，桑斯坦也反對(duì)該結(jié)果，認(rèn)為這是個(gè)都市傳說。

　　Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimizing costs by counting only hoursspent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs maybe found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. Atthe same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued . Theagencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no onedoubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

　　與此同時(shí)，行政部門被指控通過僅計(jì)算文案工作時(shí)間和設(shè)備成本來最小化成本以迎合監(jiān)管要求。真實(shí)成本可能體現(xiàn)在由于監(jiān)管過度導(dǎo)致人們?yōu)榱藨?yīng)付政策而表現(xiàn)出來的反常行為中，而這些成本是難以量化的。同時(shí)，各部門可能過高估計(jì)了監(jiān)管所帶來的收益，因?yàn)楦鞑块T都使用自己的數(shù)據(jù)和計(jì)算方法來計(jì)算收益。但是唯一可以確定的是，想要符合日漸繁雜的規(guī)章制度已經(jīng)是難上加難了。

　　Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must gothrough the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: commentperiods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulatedindustries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs intocompliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

　　而且，降低監(jiān)管力度的政策同樣難以實(shí)施。法規(guī)的精簡(jiǎn)需要和增加法規(guī)走同樣復(fù)雜冗長的流程：評(píng)估階段，內(nèi)部評(píng)審，不停的幕后游說。諷刺的是，飽受法規(guī)監(jiān)管折磨的工業(yè)企業(yè)實(shí)際上反而可能希望保留這些法規(guī)監(jiān)管，因?yàn)樗麄儾幌Ｍ麄冇捎谧袷胤ㄒ?guī)所帶來的沉沒成本因?yàn)榉ㄒ?guī)的消失而變成新興競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的利益。

　　Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republicancandidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. Asecond idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits,modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a boardof outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closurecommission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet anotheris creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created anOffice of the Repealer, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governorand legislature. Lastly, automatic sunsets of laws have their fans, though Congress couldmindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills .

　　為了應(yīng)對(duì)上述最后一個(gè)問題，許多提案紛紛浮出水面。其中一個(gè)是由共和黨候選人Mitt Romney所支持的提案，內(nèi)容為每當(dāng)有一項(xiàng)新提案提出時(shí)，就廢除一項(xiàng)對(duì)應(yīng)的舊法規(guī)。第二個(gè)辦法是以廣受尊崇的國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室為藍(lán)本，成立一個(gè)真正獨(dú)立的評(píng)判機(jī)構(gòu)來裁定法規(guī)的成本與利益。第三個(gè)辦法是成立一個(gè)由外界知名人士組成的董事會(huì)，以幫助打破政治僵局，比如說就像之前的軍事基地重組與關(guān)閉委員會(huì)一樣，可以督促國會(huì)關(guān)閉軍事基地。但是還有一個(gè)辦法是成立一個(gè)全職機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)回審監(jiān)管法規(guī)：堪薩斯州率先成立了廢止議案辦公室，功能是匯總對(duì)于議案的反對(duì)意見并向政府和立法機(jī)關(guān)提交議案的廢止建議。除此之外，還有人支持法律的定期自動(dòng)終結(jié)，當(dāng)然國會(huì)還是可能會(huì)無腦地重新為各項(xiàng)議案中提及的即將到期的法律延期的。

　　Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress moreheavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind ofthing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, notsubsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of Americas regulatory woes. Jim Cooper, aDemocratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: People vote on thingsthey have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read. He further despairs ofthe power of special interests to bend Congresss will: There is a pimento lobby, he says ofthose who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served insideolives. You do not want to cross the pimento people. In such an environment, gettingthings undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.

　　最后不得不說，REINS法案是個(gè)糟糕的決定。眾議院通過了該法案，國會(huì)可以越俎代庖地更多地參與規(guī)章制定環(huán)節(jié)。還有什么比行政部門更爛的類似機(jī)構(gòu)嗎?舍國會(huì)其誰! 經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織在1999年的研究表明，美國監(jiān)管困境的核心問題是那些寫的很爛的法律，而不是隨后的規(guī)則制定。來自田納西州的民主黨下議院議員Jim Cooper對(duì)他的同事表示：國會(huì)那些家伙根本不去看他投了什么一票，也沒時(shí)間看，更看不懂那些玩意兒。他更對(duì)國會(huì)的意愿屈服于特殊利益集團(tuán)之事表示失望：有一個(gè)關(guān)于辣椒的游說，他指的是那些為了爭(zhēng)取那些種小紅辣椒的人的利益的人，你們都不敢得罪那些辣角色。在這樣的環(huán)境里，要把現(xiàn)有法規(guī)取消不比建立新法規(guī)更簡(jiǎn)單，甚至有可能更難。

　　CHEERS greeted Barack Obamas hiring of CassSunstein away from the University of Chicago. MrSunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge oflifting the heavy hand of regulation from Americaseconomy. Known for his clever economics, MrSunstein favours a libertarian paternalismpolicies that nudge, but do not force, people to dothe right things. For example, making people optout instead of opting in to pension plans makesmany more sign up, to their benefit. And MrSunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiencystickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

　　奧巴馬從芝加哥大學(xué)挖來了凱斯?桑斯坦，此舉讓人歡欣鼓舞。桑斯坦律師現(xiàn)在是白宮信息和監(jiān)管事務(wù)辦公室主任，負(fù)責(zé)降低監(jiān)管對(duì)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的干預(yù)力度。桑斯坦因其睿智的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)思想而名滿天下，并且信奉對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)應(yīng)持家長式的自由管理態(tài)度;他認(rèn)為政策應(yīng)該引導(dǎo)，而不是強(qiáng)制人民去做正確的事情。比如說，讓人民選擇是否放棄而不是選擇是否加入退休金計(jì)劃使得更多人參與該計(jì)劃，并最終讓他們自身受益。桑斯坦還參與了飲食建議與汽車燃油效能標(biāo)簽的重新設(shè)計(jì)，使得之前混亂的信息更易于理解。

　　Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obamatelling every agency to slimits rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580proposals received from the departments under his purview. And he says real savings are onthe way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems willsave $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in theMedicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies haveresponded not grudgingly , but eagerly.

　　桑斯坦現(xiàn)在負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督一年前奧巴馬總統(tǒng)頒布的行政命令，該命令要求各有關(guān)部門精簡(jiǎn)其規(guī)章制度。桑斯坦表示所有部門都執(zhí)行了該法令，并且他管轄的部門已經(jīng)上交了580份提案。他表示更切實(shí)有效的節(jié)省計(jì)劃即將展開。要求各州配備污染蒸汽回收系統(tǒng)的措施可以在未來五年內(nèi)節(jié)約4億美元。讓醫(yī)生和醫(yī)院更方便參與老年人的美國聯(lián)邦醫(yī)療計(jì)劃的舉措可以節(jié)約約50億美元。桑斯坦補(bǔ)充說，各級(jí)部門并不是勉強(qiáng)應(yīng)付該行政令，而是予以積極配合。

　　But the Obama administration has added to the rulebook at the same time as it istrimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. InGeorge Bushs first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits thancosts, as the agencies economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. Theoverall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study forthe Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008,though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the WorldBank, which one of the banks researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it asan urban myth.

　　但是奧巴馬政府在精簡(jiǎn)法規(guī)的同時(shí)又在對(duì)法規(guī)進(jìn)行增補(bǔ)，增補(bǔ)的許多法規(guī)都規(guī)模甚大：其中有194項(xiàng)經(jīng)濟(jì)影響超過1億美元的法規(guī)都已在聯(lián)邦公報(bào)上公布。在喬治布什政府上臺(tái)的前三年，類似的法規(guī)有141項(xiàng)。甚至即使大多數(shù)法規(guī)帶來的利益都高于其成本，監(jiān)管的范圍仍然沒有縮減。監(jiān)管的總成本仍是個(gè)未知數(shù)，計(jì)算方法也飽受爭(zhēng)議。一項(xiàng)對(duì)于小型企業(yè)管理局的研究表明2008年僅不完全統(tǒng)計(jì)分析的監(jiān)管成本就高達(dá)1.75萬億美元，該統(tǒng)計(jì)基于世界銀行研究出的分析方法，但該銀行的研究人員表示該方法其實(shí)并不適用于此，桑斯坦也反對(duì)該結(jié)果，認(rèn)為這是個(gè)都市傳說。

　　Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimizing costs by counting only hoursspent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs maybe found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. Atthe same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued . Theagencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no onedoubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

　　與此同時(shí)，行政部門被指控通過僅計(jì)算文案工作時(shí)間和設(shè)備成本來最小化成本以迎合監(jiān)管要求。真實(shí)成本可能體現(xiàn)在由于監(jiān)管過度導(dǎo)致人們?yōu)榱藨?yīng)付政策而表現(xiàn)出來的反常行為中，而這些成本是難以量化的。同時(shí)，各部門可能過高估計(jì)了監(jiān)管所帶來的收益，因?yàn)楦鞑块T都使用自己的數(shù)據(jù)和計(jì)算方法來計(jì)算收益。但是唯一可以確定的是，想要符合日漸繁雜的規(guī)章制度已經(jīng)是難上加難了。

　　Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must gothrough the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: commentperiods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulatedindustries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs intocompliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

　　而且，降低監(jiān)管力度的政策同樣難以實(shí)施。法規(guī)的精簡(jiǎn)需要和增加法規(guī)走同樣復(fù)雜冗長的流程：評(píng)估階段，內(nèi)部評(píng)審，不停的幕后游說。諷刺的是，飽受法規(guī)監(jiān)管折磨的工業(yè)企業(yè)實(shí)際上反而可能希望保留這些法規(guī)監(jiān)管，因?yàn)樗麄儾幌Ｍ麄冇捎谧袷胤ㄒ?guī)所帶來的沉沒成本因?yàn)榉ㄒ?guī)的消失而變成新興競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的利益。

　　Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republicancandidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. Asecond idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits,modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a boardof outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closurecommission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet anotheris creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created anOffice of the Repealer, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governorand legislature. Lastly, automatic sunsets of laws have their fans, though Congress couldmindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills .

　　為了應(yīng)對(duì)上述最后一個(gè)問題，許多提案紛紛浮出水面。其中一個(gè)是由共和黨候選人Mitt Romney所支持的提案，內(nèi)容為每當(dāng)有一項(xiàng)新提案提出時(shí)，就廢除一項(xiàng)對(duì)應(yīng)的舊法規(guī)。第二個(gè)辦法是以廣受尊崇的國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室為藍(lán)本，成立一個(gè)真正獨(dú)立的評(píng)判機(jī)構(gòu)來裁定法規(guī)的成本與利益。第三個(gè)辦法是成立一個(gè)由外界知名人士組成的董事會(huì)，以幫助打破政治僵局，比如說就像之前的軍事基地重組與關(guān)閉委員會(huì)一樣，可以督促國會(huì)關(guān)閉軍事基地。但是還有一個(gè)辦法是成立一個(gè)全職機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)回審監(jiān)管法規(guī)：堪薩斯州率先成立了廢止議案辦公室，功能是匯總對(duì)于議案的反對(duì)意見并向政府和立法機(jī)關(guān)提交議案的廢止建議。除此之外，還有人支持法律的定期自動(dòng)終結(jié)，當(dāng)然國會(huì)還是可能會(huì)無腦地重新為各項(xiàng)議案中提及的即將到期的法律延期的。

　　Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress moreheavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind ofthing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, notsubsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of Americas regulatory woes. Jim Cooper, aDemocratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: People vote on thingsthey have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read. He further despairs ofthe power of special interests to bend Congresss will: There is a pimento lobby, he says ofthose who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served insideolives. You do not want to cross the pimento people. In such an environment, gettingthings undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.

　　最后不得不說，REINS法案是個(gè)糟糕的決定。眾議院通過了該法案，國會(huì)可以越俎代庖地更多地參與規(guī)章制定環(huán)節(jié)。還有什么比行政部門更爛的類似機(jī)構(gòu)嗎?舍國會(huì)其誰! 經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織在1999年的研究表明，美國監(jiān)管困境的核心問題是那些寫的很爛的法律，而不是隨后的規(guī)則制定。來自田納西州的民主黨下議院議員Jim Cooper對(duì)他的同事表示：國會(huì)那些家伙根本不去看他投了什么一票，也沒時(shí)間看，更看不懂那些玩意兒。他更對(duì)國會(huì)的意愿屈服于特殊利益集團(tuán)之事表示失望：有一個(gè)關(guān)于辣椒的游說，他指的是那些為了爭(zhēng)取那些種小紅辣椒的人的利益的人，你們都不敢得罪那些辣角色。在這樣的環(huán)境里，要把現(xiàn)有法規(guī)取消不比建立新法規(guī)更簡(jiǎn)單，甚至有可能更難。