IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v9y2015i1p16-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The iteration deficit in responsive regulation: Are regulatory ambassadors an answer?

Author

Listed:
  • John Braithwaite
  • Seung‐Hun Hong

Abstract

One reason that regulation is difficult is that repeated encounters between regulator and regulatee are rare. We suggest diplomacy as a model for reconfiguring regulatory institutions in response. Ambassadors for Regulatory Affairs who would be agents for all state regulatory agencies could be based in most large firms and small and medium enterprises that pose unusual regulatory risks. In rural towns, police would be trained as regulatory ambassadors. Just as a US Secretary of State can launch a “diplomatic surge” in Myanmar from 2009, so regulatory surges are possible in market sectors of high risk or high opportunity. We propose strategies of indirect reciprocity as a way in which reciprocity that is only episodic in these strategic ways can promote more general responsiveness. Indirect reciprocity is reciprocity that we do not personally experience, but learn from the experience of a culture. This means that so long as we sustain regulation as a relational as opposed to a purely technocratic process, indirect reciprocity might civilize regulatory compliance in an historical process informed by the theories of Elias and Putnam.

Suggested Citation

  • John Braithwaite & Seung‐Hun Hong, 2015. "The iteration deficit in responsive regulation: Are regulatory ambassadors an answer?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 16-29, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:16-29
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12049
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12049?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. Jacint Jordana & David Levi-Faur (ed.), 2004. "The Politics of Regulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3167.
    2. Andreas Diekmann, 2004. "The Power of Reciprocity," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 487-505, August.
    3. Braithwaite, John, 2005. "Markets in Vice, Markets in Virtue," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195222012.
    4. John Braithwaite & Toni Makkai & Valerie Braithwaite, 2007. "Regulating Aged Care," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12540.
    5. Jan Tullberg, 2004. "On Indirect Reciprocity," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(5), pages 1193-1212, November.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    7. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    8. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    9. Parker,Christine, 2002. "The Open Corporation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521818902, January.
    10. Berger, Ulrich, 2011. "Learning to cooperate via indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 30-37, May.
    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. Sam Popple & Kïrsten Way & Richard Johnstone & Richard Croucher & Peta Miller, 2023. "A comparative analysis of Inspector responses to complaints about psychosocial and physical hazards," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 234-249, January.

    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. Seung‐Hun Hong & Jong‐sung You, 2018. "Limits of regulatory responsiveness: Democratic credentials of responsive regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 413-427, September.
    2. Hu, Qi & Zhou, Mengyu & Jiang, Yulian & Liu, Xingwen, 2024. "Analysis of cooperative stability for reputation evaluation rules in spatial prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 482(C).
    3. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Pan, Qiuhui & Wang, Linpeng & He, Mingfeng, 2020. "Social dilemma based on reputation and successive behavior," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).
    5. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    6. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    7. Lu, Wen & Liang, Shu, 2023. "Direct emotional interaction in prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    8. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia & Müller, Stephan, 2021. "The evolution of morals under indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 251-277.
    9. Braithwaite, John, 2006. "Responsive regulation and developing economies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 884-898, May.
    10. Laura Schmid & Farbod Ekbatani & Christian Hilbe & Krishnendu Chatterjee, 2023. "Quantitative assessment can stabilize indirect reciprocity under imperfect information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Brosnan, Sarah F., 2011. "An evolutionary perspective on morality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 23-30, January.
    12. Feng, Sinan & Liu, Xuesong & Dong, Yida, 2022. "Limited punishment pool may promote cooperation in the public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P2).
    13. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    14. Quan, Ji & Nie, Jiacheng & Chen, Wenman & Wang, Xianjia, 2022. "Keeping or reversing social norms promote cooperation by enhancing indirect reciprocity," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    15. Si, Zehua & He, Zhixue & Shen, Chen & Tanimoto, Jun, 2023. "Speculative defectors as unexpected insulators of super cooperators in structured populations," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Chang, Shuhua & Zhang, Zhipeng & Wu, Yu’e & Xie, Yunya, 2018. "Cooperation is enhanced by inhomogeneous inertia in spatial prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 419-425.
    17. Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucia Tamburino, 2008. "The Evolution of Trust in Non-Simultaneous Exchange Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 85-113, February.
    18. Egas, Martijn & Riedl, Arno, 2005. "The Economics of Altruistic Punishment and the Demise of Cooperation," IZA Discussion Papers 1646, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2009. "Counterpunishment revisited: an evolutionary approach," MPRA Paper 16923, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:9:y:2015:i:1:p:16-29. 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.