One In Two OutEdit
One In Two Out is a policy approach aimed at trimming the regulatory footprint of government while preserving core protections. In its simplest form, the idea is to require that for every new regulation created, two existing regulations are repealed or rolled back. Proponents argue this makes it easier for businesses to invest, hire, and grow by reducing compliance costs and bureaucratic drag, while still allowing for safeguards through clear, outcomes-focused standards and sunset provisions. Critics caution that not all rules are created equal and that an aggressive rollback can erode essential protections for workers, consumers, the environment, and public health. The concept has appeared in several democracies in varying forms, illustrating a persistent belief that government should be leaner without being lax about fundamental duties.
Origins and concept
The impulse behind One In Two Out traces to a broader tradition of deregulation and regulatory reform that gained prominence in the late 20th century. Advocates argue that the administrative state can grow beyond what is necessary to protect the public, impose unnecessary costs on businesses, and stifle innovation. The core proposition is not simply to cut rules at random but to implement a systematic, rule-by-rule review process. This often includes a regulatory budget that caps the acceptable net growth of regulatory burden, sunset clauses to ensure old rules are regularly reexamined, and performance-based standards that emphasize outcomes over rigid prescription. The concept is discussed within the broader fields of regulation and economic policy, and it frequently intersects with debates over the proper size of government and the best ways to balance efficiency with protections.
How it works
Counting and scope: The policy hinges on comparing the net burden of new rules to the burden of existing ones. Critics point out that some rules have outsized benefits that are not easily captured in a simple tally, while supporters emphasize that a transparent counting framework can help prioritize high-cost or duplicative rules. See cost-benefit analysis for debates about how to value different kinds of regulatory impact.
Repeal and replacement: The two-for-one idea typically means repealing or retiring two regulations for every new rule, though some variants use different ratios or allow net reductions only after considering implementation costs and transitional rules. See regulatory budget and sunset clause for related mechanisms.
Safeguards and sunset: To prevent a race to the bottom, many versions rely on sunset reviews and performance criteria to ensure protections endure where they deliver real value. See sunset clause.
Sector considerations: Certain areas—health, safety, environmental protection, financial stability, and consumer rights—may require stronger guardrails or exemptions to avoid unintended harms. See environmental regulation and public health for context.
Implementation environments: Different jurisdictions adopt variants of the idea within broader deregulation or regulatory reform agendas. In some cases, governments emphasize net cost reductions through a formal regulatory budget, while in others the emphasis is on simplifying rulemaking processes and cutting duplicative rules.
Arguments in favor
Economic dynamism and competitiveness: By reducing the cost of compliance and the friction of doing business, firms can invest more readily, expand, and hire. This is presented as a path to higher productivity and faster growth, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. See small business and economic policy.
Cleaner, smarter regulation: The approach encourages agencies to rethink unnecessary or duplicative rules, leading to clearer rules, less ambiguity, and more predictable compliance environments. See regulation and bureaucracy.
Safeguarded protections through structure: Proponents argue that the use of sunset reviews, performance standards, and cost-benefit analyses helps ensure that reforms do not erase essential protections, even as the regulatory load is reduced. See cost-benefit analysis.
Better governance and accountability: A fixed framework for trimming rules can create incentives for agencies to justify each rule’s ongoing value and to prioritize core objectives over ceremonial or obsolete rules. See public policy.
Controversies and debates
Risk to protections: Critics warn that aggressive deregulation can weaken environmental safeguards, worker safety standards, financial safeguards, and consumer protections. They argue that some rules deliver benefits that are not easily captured in a tally of costs and may have long-run social gains that exceed short-term savings. See environmental regulation and public health.
Measurement challenges: The central claim of One In Two Out rests on the ability to measure burden and benefit consistently. In practice, defining what counts as a “regulation,” calculating true costs, and valuing nonmonetary benefits (like safety or ecological integrity) is contested. See cost-benefit analysis.
Net effect and distribution: There is concern that deregulation may disproportionately impact vulnerable communities or sectors with less political voice. Proponents counter that reforms can be designed to protect essential rights and to target only duplicative or outdated rules, while still enabling growth. This tension is a core part of regulatory policy debates.
Regulatory capture and political incentives: Critics worry that the counting process can be gamed to benefit large firms with better lobbying or that regulators may favor speed over thorough review. Supporters argue that transparent processes and independent oversight can mitigate capture risks.
Woke criticisms and responses: Some critics frame One In Two Out as a tool that undermines meaningful protections in the name of growth, labeling the approach as insufficiently sensitive to community well-being. From a practical policymaking perspective, supporters argue that the best way to protect communities is to ensure regulations are truly necessary, well designed, and cost-effective, rather than to cling to broad rules that have outlived their usefulness. They contend that when safeguards are genuinely valuable, they survive scrutiny under a disciplined reform process; when they are not, they should be reevaluated. In this view, dismissing reform as ideologically driven ignores the measurable gains in efficiency and investment that accompany targeted rulemaking. See regulation and deregulation for broader debates.
Quasi-constitutional questions: Some observers raise concerns about the balance between executive-led reform and legislative prerogative, asking how much change should be expected without adequate legislative input. Advocates emphasize that well-structured reform can enhance accountability by making the costs and benefits of rules more transparent.
Variants and implementations
Global variants: Different democracies have experimented with One In Two Out concepts under varying names and rules. The core idea is to align rule creation with a conscientious withdrawal of existing rules, rather than pursuing net growth in regulatory obligations. See regulatory policy and economic policy for comparative perspectives.
Administrative tools: In some cases, governments adopt a formal regulatory budget, sunset reviews, or performance-based standards to guide reform. See regulatory budget and sunset clause for details.
Sectoral approaches: Some versions of the policy are more aggressive in certain sectors (for example, commerce, labor, or environmental protection) where the burden is high or where reform is most feasible without compromising essential protections. See environmental regulation and labor law.