For those who may not have been paying attention, “A small group of developing countries are transforming the global economic landscape,” the Congressional Research Service observed in a report last month. “Led by China, India, and Brazil, these rising economic powers pose varied challenges and opportunities for U.S. economic interests and leadership of the global economy.” See “Rising Economic Powers and the Global Economy: Trends and Issues for Congress” (pdf), August 22, 2011.
Other new reports from CRS that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).
“Cost-Benefit and Other Analysis Requirements in the Rulemaking Process,” August 30, 2011
“Climate Change: Conceptual Approaches and Policy Tools,” August 29, 2011
“Financing Recovery After a Catastrophic Earthquake or Nuclear Power Incident,” August 25, 2011
“Addressing the Long-Run Budget Deficit: A Comparison of Approaches,” August 25, 2011
“Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations,” September 2, 2011
“Congressional Primer on Major Disasters and Emergencies,” August 31, 2011
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.