IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v14y2020i2p203-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Regulatory Gift: Politics, regulation and governance

Author

Listed:
  • Jude Browne

Abstract

This article introduces the “regulatory gift” as a conceptual framework for understanding a particular form of government‐led deregulation that is presented as central to the public interest. Contra to theories of regulatory capture, government corruption, “insider” personal interest, or profit‐seeking theories of regulation, the regulatory gift describes reform that is overtly designed by government to reduce or reorient regulators’ functions to the advantage of the regulated and in line with market objectives on a potentially macro (rather than industry‐specific) scale. As a conceptual framework, the regulatory gift is intended to be applicable across regulated sectors of democratic states and in this article the empirical sections evidence the practice of regulatory gifting in contemporary United Kingdom (UK) politics. Specifically, this article analyses the 2011 UK Public Bodies Act, affecting some 900 regulatory public bodies and its correlative legislation, the 2014 Regulator's Code, the 2015 Deregulation Act, and the 2016 Enterprise Bill. The article concludes that while in some cases the regulatory gift may be aligned with the public interest – delivering on cost reduction, enhancing efficiency, and stimulating innovation – this will not always be the case. As the case study of the regulatory body, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, demonstrates, despite the explicit claims made by legislators, the regulatory gift has the potential to significantly undermine the public interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Jude Browne, 2020. "The Regulatory Gift: Politics, regulation and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 203-218, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:14:y:2020:i:2:p:203-218
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12194
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12194?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. Dima Yazji Shamoun & Bruce Yandle, 2016. "Asserting presidential preferences in a regulatory review bureaucracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 87-111, January.
    2. Hellman, Joel S. & Jones, Geraint & Kaufmann, Daniel & Schankerman, Mark, 2000. "Measuring governance, corruption, and State capture - how firms and bureaucrats shape the business environment in transition economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2312, The World Bank.
    3. Levine, Michael E & Forrence, Jennifer L, 1990. "Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 167-198.
    4. Goodin, Robert E., 1996. "Institutionalizing the Public Interest: The Defense of Deadlock and Beyond," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 331-343, June.
    5. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silano, Filippo, 2023. "Agency costs in primary dealer systems," ILE Working Paper Series 69, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.

    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. Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 1995. "Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972-1995," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50709, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Irina Slinko & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Evgeny Yakovlev, 2005. "Laws for Sale: Evidence from Russia," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 7(1), pages 284-318.
    3. Petrou, Andreas P. & Thanos, Ioannis C., 2014. "The “grabbing hand” or the “helping hand” view of corruption: Evidence from bank foreign market entries," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454.
    4. Finér Lauri, 2022. "Who generated the loopholes? A case study of corporate tax advisors’ regulatory capture over anti-tax avoidance legislation in Finland," Nordic Tax Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2022(1), pages 1-26, December.
    5. Estache, Antonio & Wren-Lewis, Liam, 2010. "What Anti-Corruption Policy Can Learn from Theories of Sector Regulation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8082, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Timothy Fitzgerald, 2024. "Regulatory capture in a resource boom," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 198(1), pages 93-127, January.
    7. Antonio Estache & Liam Wren-Lewis, 2011. "Anti-Corruption Policy in Theories of Sector Regulation," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Ufere, Nnaoke & Perelli, Sheri & Boland, Richard & Carlsson, Bo, 2012. "Merchants of Corruption: How Entrepreneurs Manufacture and Supply Bribes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 2440-2453.
    9. Bruce Yandle, 2022. "George J. Stigler’s theory of economic regulation, bootleggers, baptists and the rebirth of the public interest imperative," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(1), pages 23-34, October.
    10. J.A. den Hertog, 2010. "Review of economic theories of regulation," Working Papers 10-18, Utrecht School of Economics.
    11. den Hertog, Johan, 1996. "The policy of deregulation in The Netherlands," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 979-987, April.
    12. Maurizio Trapanese, 2020. "The regulatory cycle in banking: what lessons from the U.S. experience? (from the Dodd-Frank Act to Covid-19)," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 585, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    13. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    14. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    15. Bryan Caplan & Edward Stringham, 2005. "Mises, bastiat, public opinion, and public choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 79-105.
    16. Tin Cheuk Leung & Kwok Ping Ping & Kevin K. Tsui, 2019. "What can deregulators deregulate? The case of electricity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-32, August.
    17. Fu, Tong & Jian, Ze, 2020. "A developmental state: How to allocate electricity efficiently in a developing country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    18. Rosenzweig, Mark R. & Wolpin, Kenneth I., 1984. "Externalities, Heterogeneity and the Optimal Distribution of Public Programs: Child Health and Family Planning Interventions," Bulletins 8435, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    19. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    20. Boone, Peter, 1996. "Politics and the effectiveness of foreign aid," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 289-329, February.

    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:wly:reggov:v:14:y:2020:i:2:p:203-218. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.