Negotiated rulemaking in practice

Until recently, parties interested in rulemaking by federal agencies were forced to voice their views primarily through adversarial procedures. An alternative, negotiated rulemaking, was proposed by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) in 1982. Since then, negotiated rulemaking has been used four times by federal agencies. The four completed negotiations show that negotiated rulemaking permits affected interests to retain greater control over the content of agency rules, while ensuring fairness and balance. It also permits agencies to obtain a more accurate perception of the costs and benefits of policy alternatives than can be obtained from digesting voluminous records of testimonial and documentary evidence presented in adversarial hearings. This article summarizes the results of a recently completed report prepared by the author for the Administrative Conference. It reviews the genesis of negotiated rulemaking, presents a framework within which to understand dynamics of the negotiation process and related administrative law issues, and presents recommendations for future agency use of negotiated rulemaking recently adopted in substance by the Administrative Conference.     

Formed by thalidomide: mass torts as a false cure for toxic exposure

Professor Bernstein considers a theme of Judge Weinstein's judicial and academic writings--that tort law works imperfectly to effect justice in mass disaster cases--through the vehicle of thalidomide, the paradigmatic toxic substance. Thirty-five years ago, thalidomide poisoned thousands of children, inflicting limb-reduction birth defects. Professor Bernstein argues that the drug has also had a malforming effect on mass tort law. Courts and scholars have used the precedent of thalidomide to build stringent legal standards of proof and causation, without enough attention to the functions and consistency of these standards. Thalidomide has also prompted commentators to celebrate American drug regulation and the American liability system; Professor Bernstein argues that these paeans are exaggerated. She concludes that the United States must confront its thalidomide history, as other nations in the world have done, and build social institutions--strong regulation and social insurance--to guard against toxic disasters of the future.     

The Role of Group-Based Status in Job Satisfaction: Workplace Respect Matters More for the Stigmatized

Respectful treatment may be more consequential for members of stigmatized groups because they are often excluded from society. The present study examined the consequences of respectful treatment in the workplace on job satisfaction for members of stigmatized groups. Among a nationally representative sample of American adults, members of stigmatized groups showed a stronger relationship between respectful treatment and job satisfaction compared to their non-stigmatized counterparts. However, they did not show a stronger relationship between their pay and job satisfaction. The results point to the special importance of respect for members of stigmatized group as a means of reassuring their belonging and value in society.     

Book Review

Understanding criminal behaviour, psychosocial approaches to criminality D. W. Jones Devon: Willan Publishing, 2008.