IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v33y2015i1p9-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Question of Perspective: Impact Assessment and the Perceived Costs and Benefits of New Regulations for SMEs

Author

Listed:
  • Francis Chittenden

    (Harold Hankins Building, Manchester Business School, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, England)

  • Tim Ambler

    (London Business School, Regent's Park, London NW1 4SA, England)

Abstract

Regulation remains a contentious topic between small firms, policy makers, and scholars. Business lobbying organizations persistently claim that regulation acts as a deterrent to economic activity. In contrast, policy makers and some scholars have argued that regulation creates net benefits for society and so may have a modest positive impact on SMEs. This paper seeks to offer at least a partial explanation for these very different perspectives. Through studying the majority of UK Impact Assessments issued over the twelve years from 1998 to 2009 and relevant government publications, we find that differences in the objective decision-making criteria (algorithms and heuristics) of the parties involved provide at least a partial explanation of why their views appear irreconcilable. It is argued that both are acting rationally in pursuit of higher goals and are not simply ‘gaming’ in order to gain the greatest private advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Francis Chittenden & Tim Ambler, 2015. "A Question of Perspective: Impact Assessment and the Perceived Costs and Benefits of New Regulations for SMEs," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(1), pages 9-24, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:33:y:2015:i:1:p:9-24
    DOI: 10.1068/c12211b
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c12211b
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c12211b?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glen C. Arnold & Panos D. Hatzopoulos, 2000. "The Theory‐Practice Gap in Capital Budgeting: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5‐6), pages 603-626, June.
    2. Baldwin, Robert & Cave, Martin & Lodge, Martin, 2011. "Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199576098, December.
    3. J. Pope & R. Fayle, 1991. "The Compliance Costs of Public Companies' Income Taxation in Australia 1986/87: Empirical results," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 91-09, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    4. Glen C. Arnold & Panos D. Hatzopoulos, 2000. "The Theory-Practice Gap in Capital Budgeting: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5&6), pages 603-626.
    5. Rajshree Agarwal & David B. Audretsch, 2001. "Does Entry Size Matter? The Impact of the Life Cycle and Technology on Firm Survival," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 21-43, March.
    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. Olivier Rousse, 2008. "On the bias of yield-based capital budgeting methods," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8.
    2. Roopali Batra & Satish Verma, 2014. "An Empirical Insight into Different Stages of Capital Budgeting," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 339-362, June.
    3. Marcin Pawlak & Dariusz Zarzecki, 2020. "Investment Appraisal Practice in the European Union Countries," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 687-699.
    4. Gil Cohen & Joseph Yagil, 2010. "Sectorial differences in corporate financial behavior: an international survey," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 245-262.
    5. Siziba, Simiso & Hall, John Henry, 2021. "The evolution of the application of capital budgeting techniques in enterprises," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    6. Peter Markovič & Michal Šinský, 2009. "Trends in application of capital budgeting methods for investment projects evaluation," Ekonomika a Management, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2009(1).
    7. Freeman, Mark C., 2009. "The practice of estimating the term structure of discount rates," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 219-234.
    8. Juergen Bufka & Oliver Kemper & Dirk Schiereck, 2004. "A note on estimating the divisional cost of capital for diversified companies: an empirical evaluation of heuristic-based approaches," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 68-80.
    9. Nene Lartey Addico & Godfred Amewu & Anthony Owusu‐Ansah, 2022. "The use of investment decision techniques and tools in practice in a frontier market: Evidence from Ghana," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1748-1763, September.
    10. Ahmad N. H. Anabtawi, 2018. "The Extent of Using and Trusting Capital Budgeting Methods in Projects Appraisal in Palestinian Corporations," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(6), pages 151-151, June.
    11. Fadi Alkaraan & Deryl Northcott, 2007. "Strategic investment decision making: the influence of pre‐decision control mechanisms," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(2), pages 133-150, June.
    12. Akalu, M.M. & Turner, J.R., 2001. "Investment Appraisal Process," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-78-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Tatiana Ponomarenko & Eugene Marin & Sergey Galevskiy, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of Oil and Gas Projects: Justification of Engineering Solutions in the Implementation of Field Development Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Chittenden, Francis & Derregia, Mohsen, 2015. "Uncertainty, irreversibility and the use of ‘rules of thumb’ in capital budgeting," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 225-236.
    15. Huikku, Jari & Karjalainen, Jouko & Seppälä, Tomi, 2018. "The dynamism of pre-decision controls in the appraisal of strategic investments," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 516-538.
    16. Sureka, Riya & Kumar, Satish & Colombage, Sisira & Abedin, Mohammad Zoynul, 2022. "Five decades of research on capital budgeting – A systematic review and future research agenda," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Andrea Dello Sbarba & Riccardo Giannetti & Alessandro Marelli, 2015. "A field study of Value-Based Management sophistication: The role of shareholders," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 65-100.
    18. Andor, Gyorgy & Mohanty, Sunil K. & Toth, Tamas, 2015. "Capital budgeting practices: A survey of Central and Eastern European firms," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 148-172.
    19. Mehari Mekonnen Akalu, 2002. "Evaluating the Capacity of Standard Investment Appraisal Methods," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-082/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Stefan Behringer, 2016. "The Development of the Net Present Value (NPV) Rule ¨C Religious Prohibitions and Its Evolution," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 6, pages 74-87, August.

    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:sae:envirc:v:33:y:2015:i:1:p:9-24. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.