Yesterday, the FCC
voted
to establish the Office of Economics and Analytics, which will help ensure that
economic analysis is deeply and consistently incorporated as part of the
agency’s regular operations. The decision was a party-line vote with Commissioners
Clyburn and Rosenworcel dissenting, but why would any Commissioner vote against
the FCC using more economics and analytics?
In a September
2017 blog, I said that opposing a cost-benefit analysis for proposed
regulations is a red flag:
It is important that the FCC perform this cost-benefit
analysis, because agencies, independent or not, should analyze how new rules
will impact innovation, investment, job creation, and economic activity. It is
reasonable to question the methodology that an agency uses when assessing the
costs and benefits of a regulation. However, if an interested party offers only
criticism of an agency proposal to conduct a regulatory CBA, this is likely a
signal that the interested party fears that the costs will outweigh the
benefits, invalidating its policy position.
I think the same
rationale applies for anyone who opposes the FCC’s action to create the Office
of Economics and Analytics. It will be important for consumers, businesses, and
policymakers to question the methodology and results that this office will
produce in the future, and I fully expect all Commissioners, at some point, to
disagree with a methodology used by the office. However, opposing the implementation
of additional uses of economics, analytics, and data science at the FCC raises
a red flag.
Posts
