IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id11463.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regulatory Responsiveness in India: A Normative and Empirical Framework for Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Anirudh Burman
  • Bhargavi Zaveri

Abstract

This paper seeks to measure the extent to which Indian regulators are responsive in the performance of their functions. The paper focuses on one function common to all Indian statutory regulators, namely, regulation making. To measure responsiveness, the paper constructs an index of benchmarks of responsive conduct, with corresponding quantifiable outputs. It empirically measures the responsiveness of the telecom and securities markets regulators in India, on this index. The paper finds that there are significant differences among the laws governing Indian regulators in the context of the requirement to be responsive, and that the degree of responsiveness of Indian regulators is directly proportional to the legal requirement for following participatory processes. [WP-2016-025].

Suggested Citation

  • Anirudh Burman & Bhargavi Zaveri, 2016. "Regulatory Responsiveness in India: A Normative and Empirical Framework for Assessment," Working Papers id:11463, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:11463
    Note: Institutional Papers
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.esocialsciences.org/Download/repecDownload.aspx?fname=A201611813140_20.pdf&fcategory=Articles&AId=11463&fref=repec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braithwaite, John, 2006. "Responsive regulation and developing economies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 884-898, May.
    2. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1983. "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 175-190, 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. Anirudh Burman & Bhargavi Zaveri, 2016. "Regulatory responsiveness in India: A normative and empirical framework for assessment," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2016-025, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    2. Hayo, Bernd & Neumeier, Florian, 2017. "The (In)validity of the Ricardian equivalence theorem–findings from a representative German population survey," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 162-174.
    3. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    4. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    6. Biradavolu, Monica Rao & Burris, Scott & George, Annie & Jena, Asima & Blankenship, Kim M., 2009. "Can sex workers regulate police? Learning from an HIV prevention project for sex workers in southern India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1541-1547, April.
    7. An, Youngeun & Lee, Youngsun & Oh, Soon-young & Lee, Jeong Youn, 2024. "How can young adults be civically engaged? The role of academic achievement standards in enhancing civic and social engagement in the case of South Korea," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    9. Donald L. Jordan & Benjamin I. Page, 1992. "Shaping Foreign Policy Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 227-241, June.
    10. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Liza G. Steele, 2015. "Income Inequality, Equal Opportunity, and Attitudes About Redistribution," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 444-464, June.
    12. Kinda, Romuald, 2010. "Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels," MPRA Paper 27455, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Hanna Ågren & Matz Dahlberg & Eva Mörk, 2007. "Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 137-162, January.
    15. Filip Beule & Haiyan Zhang, 2022. "The impact of government policy on Chinese investment locations: An analysis of the Belt and Road policy announcement, host-country agreement, and sentiment," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(2), pages 194-217, June.
    16. Marco R. Di Tommaso & Stuart O. Schweitzer, 2013. "Industrial Policy in America," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13749.
    17. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    18. John Buchanan & Dominic Heesang Chai & Simon Deakin, 2013. "Empirical Analysis of Legal Institutions and Institutional Change: Multiple-Methods Approaches and their Application to Corporate Governance Research," Working Papers wp445, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    19. Voelkel, Jan G. & Stagnaro, Michael & Chu, James & Pink, Sophia Lerner & Mernyk, Joseph S. & Redekopp, Chrystal & Ghezae, Isaias & Cashman, Matthew & Adjodah, Dhaval & Allen, Levi, 2024. "Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity," OSF Preprints y79u5_v1, Center for Open Science.
    20. Sarah D Kowitt & Seth M Noar & Leah M Ranney & Adam O Goldstein, 2017. "Public attitudes toward larger cigarette pack warnings: Results from a nationally representative U.S. sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, March.

    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:ess:wpaper:id:11463. 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: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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.