No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Global-Regulation: Drawing Future Regulatory Tools from the Experience of the Past
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
“Man of science should turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge”
Vannevar BushTraditionally, theories on regulation have suggested choosing the “right” regulatory tool for a given situation of desired behavioral steering, using a broad theoretical approach of understanding the factors involved in the regulatory realm and speculating from it toward the efficient choice.
By contrast, this paper will argue that the process of choosing the “right” regulatory tool should be guided by an opposite process, in which a searchable database of regulatory case studies (“Global-Regulation”) will be created. The institution (i.e., governments, regulation agencies, etc.) seeking to steer behavior using regulatory tools (“The Regulator”) will search Global-Regulation using the specific characters of its situation (i.e., industry, regulationmethod, country, etc.), to find relevant case-studies that will lead to the best regulatory solution.
It is assumed that this approach will establish regulation and regulatory tools as an empirical process of selection guided by a global accumulated body of knowledge, that will eventually create amore efficient and successful regulation and hence, desired behavior. The first part of this paper will provide an overview of regulatory learning. The second part will describe the Global-regulation database. The third partwill develop an example of the way in which case studies will be indexed into the Global-Regulation database. The fourth part will discuss the benefits of Global-Regulation to scholars and its symbiotic relationship with the research in the regulatory field. Finally, this paper will address possible problemswith the suggested system.
- Type
- Reports
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013
References
1 As We May Think, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945.
2 Scott Jacobs, Managing Director at Jacobs and Associates suggested their RIA course <http://regulatoryreform.com/ria-training.html> (last accessed on 6 August 2013); Tom R. Burns, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Uppsala, Sweden suggested two articles: <http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/260/217> (last accessed on 6 August 2013), The second article has appeared recently (2011) in Human Systems Management, The EU case studies are presented in substantial detail in Marcus Carson et al, “Paradigms in Public Policy: Theory and Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the EU”, Peter Lang Publishers and David Bach, Professor of Strategy and Economic Environment, IE business School, Spain, suggested an old HBS case on RWE and regulation of electricity in Germany.
3 2011 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf> (last accessed on 6 August 2013).
4 The actual web-based project is available online on at <http://www.Global-Regulation.com> (last accessed on 6 August 2013).
5 For policy definitions see Chong, A., “Transnational public policy in civil and commercial matters”, 128 L.Q.R. (2012), pp. 88–113 Google Scholar; Arvind, T.T., “The ‘transplant effect’ in harmonization”, 59(1) I.C.L.Q. (2010), pp. 65–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meidanis, H.P., “Public policy and order public in the private international law of the EU: traditional positions and modern trends”, 30(1) E.L. Rev. (2005), pp. 95–110, at p. 100Google Scholar. Policy is often not defined but the tools of analysis or sub-fields of policy are defined in scholarly works such as John, P., “The policy agendas project: a review”, 13(7) Journal of European Public Policy (2006), pp. 975–986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see Zahariadis, N., “Ambiguity and choice in European public policy”, 15(4) Journal of European Public Policy (2008), pp. 514–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hall, P., “Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain”, 25 Comparative Politics (2006), pp. 275–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Regulation is also often defined in terms of a particular field or subject of research, rather than in a generic sense, as can be seen by the sheer volume of articles on regulation. For the difficulty in defining generic regulation see Begg, Iain, “Introduction: Regulation in the European Union”, 3(4) Journal of European Public Policy (1996), pp. 525–535, at p. 526CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 See, for example, Radaelli, C., “Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe”, 16(8) Journal of European Public Policy (2009), pp. 1145–1164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (providing a prime example of the interchangeable nature of regulation and policy).
7 Cram, L., “Calling the tune without paying the piper? Social policy regulation: the role of the Commission I European Community social policy”, 21(1) Policy and Politics (1993), pp. 135–146, at pp. 142-144CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Radaelli, C. and Dunlop, C., “Policy learning in the European Union: Theoretical lenses and metatheory”, Journal of European Public Policy (2012), pp. 1–30, at p. 10Google Scholar.
8 Ibid.
9 Schout, A., “Organizational Learning in the EU's Multilevel Governance System”, 16(8) Journal of European Public Policy (2009), pp. 1124–1144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
10 Radaelli, C., “Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda?”, 14(2) Journal of European Public Policy (2007), pp. 190–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Id.
12 See Radaelli and Dunlop, supra, note 7
13 A full overview of regulation and public policy definitions, similarities and differences is beyond the scope of this paper.
14 May, P., “Policy learning and failure”, 12(4) Journal of Public Policy (1992), pp. 331–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennet, C. and Howlett, M., “The lessons of learning: reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change, 25(3) Policy Sciences (1992), pp. 275–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; See Hall, supra note 5; Radaelli, C., “Policy transfer in the European Union: institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy”, 13(1) Governance (2000), pp. 25–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weyland, K., Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; M. : Evans, M., “At the interface between theory and practice – policy transfer and lesson drawing”, 84(2) Public Administration (2006), pp. 479–489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 James, O. and Lodge, M., “The limitations of “policy transfer” and “lesson-drawing” for public policy research”, 1(2) Political Studies Review (2003), pp. 179–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bomberg, E., “Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new policy instruments”, 14(2) Journal of European Public Policy (2007), pp. 248–268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Egan, M., “Governance and learning in the post-Maastricht era?”, 16(8) Journal of European public Policy (2009), pp. 1244–1253, at p. 1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 See May supra note 14, at 333; Breslauer, G. and Tetlock, P., “Introduction”, in Breslauer, G. and Tetlock, P. (eds), Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 3–19 Google Scholar.
18 See May, supra note 16, at 333.
19 Bennett, C. and Howlett, M., “The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change”, 25(3) Policy Sciences (1992), pp. 275–294, at p. 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar; May supra note 14.
20 See Radaelli, supra note 6, at 1148; Radaelli, C., “Europeanization, Policy Learning, and New Modes of Governance”, 10(3) Journal of Comparative Policy analysis (2008), pp. 239–254, at p. 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar; See May supra note 14.
21 See Radaelli, “Europeanization, Policy Learning, and New Modes of Governance”, supra note 20, at 242. See May supra note 14.
22 Gilardi, F. and Radaelli, C., “Governance and Learning”,in Levi-Faur, David (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (Oxford: OUP, 2012), ch. 11, at p. 156Google Scholar; See Hall, supra note 5.
23 See Hall, supra note 5.
24 Ibid.
25 Heclo, H., Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (New Have: Yale University Press, 1976), at pp. 305–306 Google Scholar.
26 May, supra note 14.
27 Richard, R., “What is Lesson Drawing?”, 11(1) Jnl Publ. Pol. (1976), pp. 3–30 Google Scholar.
28 See Hall, supra note 5, at 278.
29 See DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W., “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, 48 American Sociological Review (1983), pp. 147–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 See Radaelli and Dunlop, supra, note 7, at p. 10; and see DiMaggio and Powell, supra, note 29, at p. 151.
31 Rosa, supra, note 27, at p. 11.
32 See Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R., “Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism”, 21(4) The Academy of Management Review (1996), pp. 1022–1054 Google Scholar, at p. 1023 and p. 1026 (their examination specifically examines the radical and revolutionary changes).
33 See Rose, supra note 27.
34 Ibid.
35 See Rose, supra note 27, at p. 4.
36 See Rose, supra note 27.
37 B. Cashore, H. Hoogeveen, J. Rayner, P. Verkooijen, “Learning About Policy Learning: Designing a Global Forest Governance Learning Architecture”, ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop, at p. 13.
38 Evans, M., “At the Interface Between Theory and Practice – policy Transfer and Lesson-Drawing (a review of Richard Rose book learning From Comparative Public policy: a Practical Guide, Routledge 2004)”, 84(2) Public Administration (2006), pp. 479–515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Ibid.