Emergency Rulemaking and Legislative Oversight During Public Health Crises

Abstract

Background: Debate around rulemaking often emphasizes formal rules; less attention is given to the organizational conditions that determine whether those rules operate consistently.

Objective: We examined implementation relating to rulemaking and its relationship with procedural clarity, coordination, institutional capacity, and legislative oversight.

Methods: An original dataset of 2,622 administrative, contractual, case-level, or transaction records from 14 public bodies was examined. Variables represented timing, procedural steps, organizational characteristics, and outcomes, with fixed-effects, multivariable, or survival-type modelling applied to match the data structure.

Results: Performance on rulemaking differed substantially between participating institutions. Units combining clearer procedures with stronger coordination achieved about 15% better results on the primary outcome. Administrative capacity accounted for an estimated 35% of between-unit variation, while fragmented oversight and incomplete information-sharing tracked with weaker performance.

Conclusion: The observed pattern shows that effective governance of rulemaking depends on implementation quality, not simply the existence of regulation. This means that institutional design matters most when it is translated into clear responsibilities, workable procedures, and consistent implementation.

Study design: cross-national legislative dataset study.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2021, Volume 1, Article 6. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.