IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v52y2022i3p497-522..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monitoring Corporate Compliance through Cooperative Federalism: Trends in Multistate Settlements by State Attorneys General

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Provost
  • Elysa Dishman
  • Paul Nolette

Abstract

Recent scholarship on U.S. regulatory federalism has tended to focus on conflict between the states and state resistance to federal initiatives. Less attention has been given to federal–state cooperation and how it affects regulatory enforcement. In this article, we examine intergovernmental cooperation in multistate lawsuits filed by state attorneys general to ascertain trends in multistate regulatory enforcement through litigation over time. We pay particular attention to the increasing use of compliance monitoring by both state and federal regulators, including through monitors independent of the regulated industries. Relying upon a dataset of legal settlements, scoping interviews, and two case studies of recent multistate litigation, we find that federal–state cooperation in multistate lawsuits has become more institutionalized over time. This increased cooperation has created a two-way street in which state and federal regulators often combine resources and learn from each other through the process of compliance monitoring.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Provost & Elysa Dishman & Paul Nolette, 2022. "Monitoring Corporate Compliance through Cooperative Federalism: Trends in Multistate Settlements by State Attorneys General," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(3), pages 497-522.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:497-522.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjac019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy J. Conlan & Paul L. Posner, 2016. "American Federalism in an Era of Partisan Polarization: The Intergovernmental Paradox of Obama’s "New Nationalism"," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 281-307.
    2. Jessica Bulman-Pozen & Gillian E. Metzger, 2016. "The President and the States: Patterns of Contestation and Collaboration under Obama," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 308-336.
    3. Sharon Gilad, 2010. "It runs in the family: Meta‐regulation and its siblings," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 485-506, December.
    4. Parker,Christine, 2002. "The Open Corporation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521818902, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Braithwaite, John, 2006. "Responsive regulation and developing economies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 884-898, May.
    2. Rob Imrie & Emma Street, 2009. "Risk, Regulation and the Practices of Architects," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(12), pages 2555-2576, November.
    3. Jodi L. Short & Michael W. Toffel & Andrea R. Hugill, 2016. "Code Contingencies: Designing Monitoring Regimes to Promote Improvement in Supply Chain Working Conditions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-001, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2019.
    4. Luc Brès & Sébastien Mena & Marie‐Laure Salles‐Djelic, 2019. "Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 127-140, June.
    5. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    6. Sanne R. Van Duin & Henri C. Dekker & Jacco L. Wielhouwer & Juan P. Mendoza, 2018. "The Tone from Above: The Effect of Communicating a Supportive Regulatory Strategy on Reporting Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 467-519, May.
    7. Benjamin Van Rooij & Adam Fine, 2018. "Toxic Corporate Culture: Assessing Organizational Processes of Deviancy," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-38, June.
    8. Elysa M Dishman, 2023. "West Virginia v. EPA: Major Questions for the Future of the Administrative State and American Federalism," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 53(3), pages 435-461.
    9. Sharon Gilad, 2011. "Institutionalizing fairness in financial markets: Mission impossible?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 309-332, September.
    10. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Helen Etchanchu, 2015. "Contextualizing Corporate Political Responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in Historical Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01891961, HAL.
    11. Björn Fasterling, 2012. "Development of Norms Through Compliance Disclosure," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(1), pages 73-87, March.
    12. Kenneth Patrick Vincent O'Sullivan & Stephen Kinsella, 2013. "Financial and regulatory failure: The case of Ireland," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Sharon Gilad, 2010. "It runs in the family: Meta‐regulation and its siblings," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 485-506, December.
    14. Cristie Ford, 2013. "Prospects for scalability: Relationships and uncertainty in responsive regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 14-29, March.
    15. William H. Simon, 2010. "Optimization and its discontents in regulatory design: Bank regulation as an example," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 3-21, March.
    16. Ian Dewing & Peter Russell, 2009. "Implementing new financial regulation: actuaries and UK with-profits funds," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(12), pages 1955-1966, June.
    17. Karen Yeung & Lee A. Bygrave, 2022. "Demystifying the modernized European data protection regime: Cross‐disciplinary insights from legal and regulatory governance scholarship," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 137-155, January.
    18. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    19. Ojo, Marianne, 2010. "Building on the trust of management: overcoming the paradoxes of principles based regulation," MPRA Paper 32243, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Jonathan Edwards & Simon Wolfe, 2007. "Ethical and Compliance‐Competence Evaluation: a key element of sound corporate governance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 359-369, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:497-522.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.