It’s called Simple, or perhaps Simpler (the letter r appears with a cross-out). Tyler Cowen says that Sunstein is always worth reading. In this case, I am unable to agree. The book is a retrospective on Sunstein’s time in the Obama Administration as “regulatory czar.” Its message is that he and his colleagues did everything right, and their critics either did not understand or were dogmatically partisan. On p. 5, he writes,

To resolve disputes about the likely effect of rules, economists are essential.

Two pages later, he writes,

Insisting on careful analysis of costs and benefits, we issued historic rules to increase the fuel economy of cars and trucks…

I think it is fair to say that many economic studies question the value of fuel economy standards. I am not saying that fuel economy standards are utterly refuted by economic analysis, but I would have liked to see a serious discussion of the literature on fuel economy standards, or at least a mention of the fact that they are controversial with economists.

I do not disagree with his view that regulation ought to employ economically sound principles. However, I do not think he has made a persuasive case that the Obama Administration made significant strides in that direction.

[UPDATE: Sam Batkins and Ike Brannon write,

Currently, when an executive agency proposes an “economically significant” regulation (meaning that its estimated effect on the economy would be $100 million or greater), it must submit a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to OIRA for review. The current administration’s OIRA has returned for reconsideration precisely one regulation in its first four years, which suggests a lack of interest in regulatory oversight

]