Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 Oxford University Press

Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives

Mary Olson

Washington University

This article develops a framework to understand the factors to which regulatory agencies respond and examines how these factors may influence agency decision-making. The model shows how either changing feedback from constituents or changing regulatory costs can alter the trade-offs facing the agency and hence create opportunities for substitution among different agency actions. This framework is used to explain the changing portfolio of FDA enforcement actions between 1972–92. Results indicate that changing constituent and political feedback is the reason for the observed policy change. Specifically, budget reductions and increasing industry demand for product approval led the FDA to reduce monitoring and substitute less resource-intensive enforcement, namely recalls, for more resource-intensive enforcement. Results also show that increasing numbers of adverse drug reaction reports from consumers and physicians enabled the agency to increase the efficiency of its inspections policy and to ultimately reduce its use of inspections.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Law Med EthicsHome page
J. Paradise, A. W. Tisdale, R. F. Hall, and E. Kokkoli
Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology
J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 2009; 37(4): 598 - 624.
[PDF]


Home page
J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
S. Gilad
Juggling Conflicting Demands: The Case of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., July 1, 2009; 19(3): 661 - 680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
D. Grant and K. C. Alfred
Sanctions and Recidivism: An Evaluation of Physician Discipline by State Medical Boards
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, October 1, 2007; 32(5): 867 - 885.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
OXF ECON PAPHome page
P. Fenn, A. Gray, and N. Rickman
Standard fees for legal aid: an empirical analysis of incentives and contracts
Oxf. Econ. Pap., October 1, 2007; 59(4): 662 - 681.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Law Econ OrganHome page
M. T. Law
How do Regulators Regulate? Enforcement of the Pure Food and Drugs Act, 1907-38
J. Law Econ. Organ., October 1, 2006; 22(2): 459 - 489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
M. K. Olson
Managing Delegation in the FDA: Reducing Delay in New-Drug Review
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 2004; 29(3): 397 - 430.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Theoretical PoliticsHome page
G. W. Cox
The Empirical Content of Rational Choice Theory: A Reply to Green and Shapiro
Journal of Theoretical Politics, April 1, 1999; 11(2): 147 - 169.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.