An interesting new paper questions whether regulatory devolution from the federal to state governments has helped or harmed us. Taking advantage of what it calls a "unique historical anomaly" that some workplace health and safety protections are enforced in some states by the states and in others by OSHA, the paper looks at enforcement data in the construction industry -- and the states don't fare that well:

• "State inspectors apparently are more lax than OSHA officials, typically imposing lower fines per violation and having less measurable impact on inspected firms’ regulatory compliance."
• "Moreover, controlling for various other factors that may affect reported injuries, the estimated frequency of construction injuries is approximately ten percent higher with state enforcement."
• "These findings call into question whether state enforcement is truly 'at least as effective' as federal enforcement, as required under §18 of the OSH Act."

These findings also call into question the insistence by many progressive advocates that it is time to abandon or downplay work on federal policy in favor of advocacy in the states. The states are not the answer; in some cases, the states are part of the problem. Nationwide problems call out for national solutions rather than a patchwork of efforts by states that could be prompted by economic dislocation into racing to the bottom rather than striving for the top. Check out the article: Alison D. Morantz, "Has Regulatory Devolution Injured American Workers?: A Comparison of State and Federal Enforcement of Construction Safety Regulations" (Stanford Law School John M. Olin Program in L. & Econ., Working Paper No. 308, June 2005).