Policy Analysis
Paragraphs

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of proposed federal actions. NEPA thus affects delivery of a wide range of infrastructure projects. NEPA requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for environmentally impactful federal actions. For infrastructure projects this can entail significant delays. A typical EIS now takes about four and one-half years and is over 600 pages long. Some EIS’s take over a decade to complete. We provide the first detailed analysis of project approval times under NEPA by examining 1269 EIS permitting processes. We analyze empirically the well-defined interval from Notice of Intent to file to Record of Decision (ROD). We use a Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the impact of several factors on EIS duration. Factors include permits featuring major construction, those including private investment, those for projects located in states with restrictive environmental laws, those using the federal permitting “dashboard,” and those publishing a Supplemental EIS prior to the ROD. We find that privately financed projects receive faster permitting, while projects involving major construction, those undertaken in restrictive states, and those utilizing the federal permitting dashboard, face slower permitting times. We also explore links between EIS page counts and permitting time. Greater EIS page counts are associated with longer permitting times. We conclude by examining EIS completion during economic stimulus programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), as well as the frequency of EIS completion by the federal government.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Journal of Regulatory Economics
Authors
Michael Bennon
Daniel De La Hormaza
R. Richard Geddes
-
NEPA Litigation Over Large Energy and Transport Infrastructure Projects with Michael Bennon

Despite five decades of experience, there is a considerable gap in legal and empirical study on the impacts of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Proponents of reform often claim NEPA litigation is a major obstacle for federal actions; others have concluded that litigation is not a major contributor of project cost escalation or delays. This webinar reviews the NEPA process and a recent study of the incidence and conditions of infrastructure project litigation under NEPA, using a data set of 355 major transportation and energy infrastructure projects that completed a federal environmental study between 2010 and 2018. Energy sectors with greater private financing have shorter permit durations and higher rates of litigation and cancellation, but also higher completion rates relative to transport sectors, which have greater public financing and lower litigation rates but longer permit timelines.

DATE: September 29, 2023
TIME: 12:00 – 1:00 PM (eastern time) / 9:00 - 10:00 am (pacific time)
PRESENTER: Michael Bennon, Stanford University

This event is co-sponsored by the Build America Center and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law.

Online via Zoom.

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Research Scholar
mike_bennon_2022.jpg

Michael Bennon is a Research Scholar at CDDRL for the Global Infrastructure Policy Research Initiative. Michael's research interests include infrastructure policy, project finance, public-private partnerships and institutional design in the infrastructure sector. Michael also teaches Global Project Finance to graduate students at Stanford. Prior to Stanford, Michael served as a Captain in the US Army and US Army Corps of Engineers for five years, leading Engineer units, managing projects, and planning for infrastructure development in the United States, Iraq, Afghanistan and Thailand. 

Program Manager, Global Infrastructure Policy Research Initiative
Michael Bennon
Seminars
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Every September, rising seniors in the Fisher Family Honors Program travel to the nation's capitol for CDRRL's Honors College. During this week-long program, students visit a wide variety of policy-related institutions in Washington, D.C., and gain firsthand exposure to how these organizations, the federal government, and think tanks work to advance democracy and development around the world.

Throughout the week, students will have the opportunity to learn about the government's vision for democracy at the National Security Council, explore an academic view of development from scholars at the World Bank, and dive into the challenges and advantages of empowering local democratic activists — particularly in countries hostile to democracy — with speakers at the National Endowment for Democracy, among other exciting site visits. They are also encouraged to use this time to connect with experts related to their thesis question. The culminating event of the trip will bring current honors students together with alumni from across the greater D.C. area for a networking happy hour.

CDDRL’s Fisher Family Honors Program brings together undergraduates from diverse fields and methodologies who are united by their passion for understanding democracy, development, and rule of law (DDRL). The aim of the program is for students to carry out original, policy-relevant research on DDRL and produce a coherent, eloquently argued, and well-written honors thesis.

This year's Honors College begins on Sunday, September 17, and will be led by Didi Kuo and Stephen Stedman, who jointly direct the honors program, alongside Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy Larry Diamond.

Read More

Fisher Family Honors Program Class of 2024
News

Introducing Our 2023-24 CDDRL Honors Students

We are thrilled to welcome ten outstanding students, who together represent eleven different majors and minors and hail from four countries, to our Fisher Family Honors Program in Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law.
Introducing Our 2023-24 CDDRL Honors Students
2023 Honors Thesis Award Winners, Tara Hein and Sean Michael
News

Graduating CDDRL Honors Students Recognized for Outstanding Theses

Tara Hein ('23) is a recipient of the 2023 Firestone Medal and Sean Michael ('23) has won CDDRL's Outstanding Thesis Award.
Graduating CDDRL Honors Students Recognized for Outstanding Theses
Phi Beta Kappa graduates
News

CDDRL Congratulates Newly Elected 2023 Phi Beta Kappa Members

Tara Hein and Sorcha Whitley (honors class of 2023) are among the newest members of this prestigious academic honors society.
CDDRL Congratulates Newly Elected 2023 Phi Beta Kappa Members
All News button
1
Subtitle

From September 17 through 23, the Fisher Family Honors Program class of 2024 will attend CDDRL's annual Honors College, gaining firsthand exposure to how the federal government, policy organizations, and think tanks work to advance democracy and development around the world.

Paragraphs
Image
America in One Room: Democratic Reform

What would Americans really think if they could discuss the issues in depth in moderated small group discussions with fellow citizens, if they had access to vetted and balanced briefing materials, and if they could get their questions answered by panels of competing experts representing different points of view? While many commentators think that our political differences are intractable, particularly on issues of how to conduct our elections or how to change our democracy, the results detailed below show many significant changes toward bipartisan agreement, even on the most contentious issues.

Press Release

Executive Summary

Briefing Materials

Q&A with Researchers

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Subtitle

The Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, in collaboration with Helena and various partners, has conducted a national Deliberative Poll® to determine what Americans would really think about possible reforms to our democracy and our electoral processes if they had a chance to weigh the options under good conditions. This project received crucial support from Porticus, the Skoll Foundation, the Thiry-O’Leary Foundation, and other donors.

Authors
Deliberative Democracy Lab
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

What would Americans really think about possible reforms to our democracy and electoral processes if they had a chance to weigh the options under good conditions? Researchers James Fishkin, Alice Siu, and Larry Diamond of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), in collaboration with Helena and various partners, have just conducted a national Deliberative Poll® to find out.

America in One Room: Democratic Reform is the third installment of America in One Room (A1R), a Deliberative Polling® project designed to explore Americans’ perspectives on some of our country’s most contentious issues, including voter access, non-partisan election administration, protection against election interference, Supreme Court reform, and more. With the 2024 election on the horizon, the findings from this comprehensive deliberative poll have the potential to reshape the discourse surrounding these important topics.

In a joint press release, DDL shared that poll results showed increased movement toward bipartisan support on a set of previously polarizing issues that are already beginning to drive political debates and candidate platforms as we head into Election 2024.

Before deliberations, participants across party lines reported feeling dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the U.S., with 65% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, and 72% of participants overall reporting dissatisfaction. However, deliberating together about potential reforms reduced discontent, with the overall percentage of dissatisfaction dropping 18 points to 54%, and party dissatisfaction dropping 11 points for Democrats and 31 points for Republicans.

Across specific democratic reform topics, there were often strong party differences before deliberation. Discourse resulted in significant depolarization and increased cross-party support on several key issues, including voting rights and ballot access.

Below, Fishkin, the director of DDL; Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI; and Siu, a senior research scholar and the associate director of DDL, reflect on their findings and what the results indicate about the path forward in strengthening American democracy.



What were your biggest takeaways from this iteration of America in One Room (A1R)? Were you surprised by any of the results?


Jim Fishkin: In normal times, the issues of how we register to vote, how and when we cast our ballots, and how we can avoid partisan interference in the elections would not be big issues. But we live in a period of fierce partisan division about our elections, and I was gratified to see this affirmation of basic American values about the non-partisan guardrails of democracy. The movement by Republicans on issues like voting rights for felons was large and surprising. The willingness of Democrats to embrace audits with random samples of ballots and paper records of the votes confirmed by the voter (initially Republican positions) also showed the capacity of dialogue to move opinion.

Larry Diamond: One of the biggest takeaways was the consistent majority support for Ranked Choice Voting in all of its different potential applications. After deliberating, majorities of our sample consistently supported the use of RCV for all kinds of elections — local, state, and national, and in both primaries and in general elections. While Republicans were more wary of this reform, up to 45% of Republicans supported some use of it, for example, in local elections, and 43% of Republicans liked the "final four" or "final five" version, as in Alaska, where there is a single non-partisan primary and then the top four finishers contest in a general election using RCV. I was also struck by the openness to some other electoral reform proposals and the strong gains in support for these (including proportional representation) after deliberation. I was not surprised by how far apart Democrats and Republicans remained on the Electoral College — there is an obvious divergence in partisan interest there.

Alice Siu: We can never predict what participants' opinions will be after deliberation. What surprised me the most was the increase in satisfaction with democracy after deliberation. Prior to deliberation, only 27% of participants expressed satisfaction with the current way democracy is working in the US. After deliberation, this percentage increased to 54%. Furthermore, when looking at satisfaction levels by political parties, we found that Republicans' satisfaction increased from 18 to 50% and Democrats increased from 34 to 46%. We have to keep in mind that participants deliberated together for 12 hours over the course of a weekend or a few weekday evenings. Together after engaging in thoughtful and structured deliberation, they developed a greater satisfaction with democracy, just showing that what our society needs are opportunities to talk and listen to each other.

We live in a period of fierce partisan division about our elections, and I was gratified to see this affirmation of basic American values about the non-partisan guardrails of democracy.
James S. Fishkin
Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

What does this poll show about the American public and our political and civic discourse that the headlines miss?


Diamond: Over and over (this is now our third "America in One Room"), we find that ordinary Americans are hungry for thoughtful and civil discussions with their fellow citizens about the issues we face. And it is possible to have these discussions if you set good conditions and ensure that everyone has access to the same body of balanced and objective information, with a fair presentation of the pro and con arguments for each proposal. Americans do narrow their differences when they can deliberate in this way. But more than that — and quite stunning to us — they also became more hopeful about American democracy. The percentage of Americans who say they are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the US increased from 27% before deliberation to 45% after. And satisfaction among Republicans doubled — from 24% to 50%.

Siu: Headlines often lead with how polarized our society is, but what they fail to tell us is that if people had the opportunity to engage with diverse others, people are capable of having respectful conversations. In fact, after deliberation, agreement with the statement 'I respect their point of view though it is different from mine' increased from 57 to 75%. Among Democrats, this percentage increased from 49 to 73%, and among Republicans, this increased from 73 to 84%. The headlines amplify the perceived polarization in our society, but what it misses is how deliberation can bring our society together in a respectful way.

Fishkin: Dialogue across differences can activate the fundamental values of our democracy and show the way for constructive solutions. The increased support for ranked choice voting and for non-partisan redistricting commissions was particularly noteworthy.

Ordinary Americans are hungry for thoughtful and civil discussions with their fellow citizens about the issues we face. And it is possible to have these discussions if you set good conditions and ensure everyone has access to the same body of balanced and objective information.
Larry Diamond
Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, FSI

What implications might this installment of A1R have for the 2024 U.S. presidential election and democratic reform initiatives on the ballot?


Fishkin: This project identifies practical reforms that have a claim on the values and concerns of the American public if they focus on the issues. I think it can be invoked for non-partisan redistricting commissions, for ranked-choice voting in various contexts, for ethics reform of the Supreme Court, and a host of other issues.

Diamond: It may not have much impact on the 2024 presidential election, but it will give momentum to reformers who are working to expand voting rights, ensure a more transparent non-partisan administration of elections, and institute Ranked Choice Voting and related electoral reforms. I think our results show that people can be persuaded, even across party lines, and it points to certain types of reforms that are more broadly appealing than others. As we analyze the transcripts of the discussions, we will also learn what kinds of arguments resonated with voters and which did not.

Siu: One of the striking results from this installment of A1R is people's concerns about voting accessibility. From restoring voting rights to citizens with felony convictions to strengthening federal standards for election machines and requirements for reporting security incidents, we hope that policymakers see the priorities that registered voters have for ensuring that our elections are fair and transparent.

We must all understand that for our society and for any society around the world, listening to each other, whether we agree or disagree, is really not an option.
Alice Siu
Associate Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

How can this research be used to help reduce polarization moving forward and create meaningful change in our public dialogues?


Siu: This installment of A1R, along with the previous A1R Deliberative Polls, have shown that deliberation can, in fact, reduce political and affective polarization. We must all understand that for our society and for any society around the world, listening to each other, whether we agree or disagree, is really not an option. 

Diamond: We now have a second major demonstration in the US of the dramatic utility of the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, developed by Stanford Professor Ashish Goel and his Crowdsourced Democracy Team. This was the second "America in One Room" to deploy this platform very successfully. When people can deliberate online, it cuts costs dramatically, and yet still, it brings about reductions in polarization and constructive changes in public opinion on many issues. Now the challenge is to figure out how we can scale up deliberation to much larger numbers of Americans and apply the tool to a wider range of issues in jurisdictions across the US as well as globally. International demand for the framework and tools of the Deliberative Democracy Lab keeps growing.

Fishkin: With our technology, we have hopes of spreading this kind of dialogue. I was struck that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all supported fostering deliberation on contentious topics.

Read More

Climate change activists march down a street carrying banners and signs.
Q&As

Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected

New data from the Center for Deliberative Democracy suggests that when given the opportunity to discuss climate change in a substantive way, the majority of Americans are open to taking proactive measures to address the global climate crisis.
Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected
Larry Diamond and James Fishkin
News

Could deliberative democracy depolarize America? Stanford scholars think so

Deliberative democracy — informed and moderated discussion that transcends partisan identities —can lead to a depolarized and more democratic society, according to Stanford research.
Could deliberative democracy depolarize America? Stanford scholars think so
America in One Room
News

Stanford students help bridge political divides

In a 2019 Sophomore College course, students traveled to Dallas, Texas, where they helped staff a landmark experiment that brought together more than 500 registered voters who represent the political, cultural and demographic diversity of America in one room.
Stanford students help bridge political divides
All News button
1
Subtitle

"America in One Room: Democratic Reform" polled participants before and after deliberation to gauge their opinions on democratic reform initiatives, including voter access and voting protections, non-partisan election administration, protecting against election interference, Supreme Court reform, and more. The results show many significant changes toward bipartisan agreement, even on the most contentious issues.

Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is pleased to announce the release of the fourth module of mini-lectures in our Solving Public Policy Problems massive open online course (MOOC).

Serious Business: Diminishing the Size of the Informal Sector in Medellin, Colombia


The new mayor of Medellin, Sergio Fajardo, arrived in office in 2004, pledging to remake the social contract between society and the state. He campaigned to introduce innovative social programs designed to lessen the high levels of poverty and violence in the city. But, the mayor needed money to finance these programs. The Minister of Planning, Federico Restrepo Posada, was charged with engaging the private sector, increasing tax revenue and promoting job creation. To do this, Restrepo needed to address the high levels of informal economic activity hindering economic dynamism and depressing the tax base. The state could not provide the necessary services because it did not collect enough taxes, but businesses refused to pay taxes because they did not believe the state was capable of delivering the services that they required. The case looks at how Restrepo addressed this dilemma.

Through this case study, students will learn why informality is a problem in developing countries and how they can employ a causal map to develop a set of theories of change for addressing policy problems.

You can read the case study here, access the full series on our YouTube page, and watch Module 4 below:

Read More

Gifford Pinchot
News

Module 3 of CDDRL’s “Solving Public Policy Problems” Online Course Out Now

This single-video module examines the case of Gifford Pinchot and Sustainable Forest Management. Through this case study, students will gain a better understanding of how good communication is important for persuading stakeholders that a reform objective is both achievable and beneficial.
Module 3 of CDDRL’s “Solving Public Policy Problems” Online Course Out Now
Grant Miller and Francis Fukuyma discuss the Case of World Health Partners-Sky
News

Module 2 of CDDRL’s “Solving Public Policy Problems” Online Course Out Now

Using the Problem-Solving Framework from Module 1, our second set of mini-lectures examines the case study of child health outcomes in Bihar, India, and includes an interview with Grant Miller, the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr. Professor of Health Policy at the Stanford School of Medicine.
Module 2 of CDDRL’s “Solving Public Policy Problems” Online Course Out Now
Solving Public Policy Problems
News

Reimagining Public Policy Education at Stanford and Beyond

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is proud to announce the launch of a new free massive open online course aimed at providing participants with a foundational knowledge of the best means for enacting effective policy change in their home countries.
Reimagining Public Policy Education at Stanford and Beyond
All News button
1
Subtitle

This module examines the problem of informality within small businesses in Medellin, Colombia. Through this case study, students will learn why informality is a problem in developing countries and how they can employ a causal map to develop a set of theories of change for addressing policy problems.

Paragraphs
Governance in California

Governance is the way that societies make decisions and solve problems. Good governance is difficult when a society is divided in its values, when trust in governing institutions is low, when political participation is biased along various social lines, and when there is not enough reliable information and structured debate in the media. Complicating matters further, governments may not be able to reach important decisions when there are too many veto points that enable small groups to delay or stop decisions, regardless of their merit or public support. Finally, even after a decision is made, governmental agencies may lack the personnel and capacity to implement and administer policies.

While California’s governance system has solved many problems, its governance system suffers from significant challenges in many areas. These include: hard problems (with large-scale challenges associated with climate change, housing, poverty, and more), multiple veto points in public decision-making, partisan division, and polarization, lack of trust in institutions, biased participation in public decisions, and the need to accelerate the modernization and strengthening of civil service in state and local government.

SCENARIOS FOR THE FUTURE


The following are presented as four possible scenarios for California’s governance, media, and civil society future.
 

Image
Scenarios for the future graphic
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Subtitle

A California 100 Report on Policies and Future Scenarios

Journal Publisher
California 100
Authors
Henry E. Brady
Francis Fukuyama
Michael Bennon
Paragraphs
Cover of Enhancing Resilience in a Chaotic World: The Role of Infrastructure

The United States is currently undergoing a period of massive change in its economy, which is being spearheaded by three major pieces of federal infrastructure and industrial policy legislation: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These new programs represent not only a massive investment in select parts of the US economy, but also significant changes in how the US invests and manages its economy through the use of industrial policy.

This chapter reviews these changes in the “how” of US industrial policy and federal investment and discusses two of the challenges that the US government faces as it attempts to orchestrate major changes to its economy. The first is a regulatory system designed to slow or otherwise constrain capital investment and growth. The second consists of unique aspects of US governance and its role in the global economy that will make state-led direct investment and other industrial policy programs challenging to implement.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Subtitle

Chapter in Enhancing Resilience in a Chaotic World: The Role of Infrastructure, an ISPI-McKinsey & Company REPORT

Authors
Michael Bennon
Book Publisher
Italian Institute for International Political Studies
0
CDDRL Honors Student, 2023-24
melissa_oliveira.jpg

Major: Political Science
Minor: Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Hometown: Manaus, Brazil
Thesis Advisor: Beatriz Magaloni & Soledad Prillaman

Tentative Thesis Title: From Dilma to Bolsonaro: Does gender policy matter to Brazilian female voters?

Future aspirations post-Stanford: After my undergraduate studies, I will be coterming in Latin American Studies. Upon finishing my master's, I intend to go back to Brazil and work in the government, both in public policy implementation and in representative politics directly. I particularly want to work with gender policy.

A fun fact about yourself: My home city, Manaus, is located in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest, and it is one of the few places where you can have a real açaí bowl.

Subscribe to Policy Analysis