Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:16:57.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulation and Regime: A Comparative Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen L. Elkin
Stephen L. Elkin
Affiliation:
Government and Politics, University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two frameworks for understanding the debate on regulation are discussed. In the first, an economizing perspective, various institutional arrangements are seen as instruments and the question posed is which is the most efficient in achieving public objectives. The second, a political perspective, begins from economizers' lack of interest in the basic organizing principles of the political structure within which the choice of regulatory arrangements occurs. Conceptions of such principles in the American case are considered and the implications of each for the choice of regulatory institutions are addressed. A parallel discussion is undertaken for the United Kingdom. The paper concludes by noting, among other things, that from a political perspective, an extensive regulatory sector looks more attractive than it does from an economizing perspective.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 49 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Julius W., ‘Estimating the Costs of Federal Regulation: Review of Problems and Accomplishments to Date’, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 78–205 E, Sept. 26, 1978.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Commission on Law and the Economy, Federal Regulation: Roads to Reform, 1979.Google Scholar
Anderson, Charles, ‘Political Design and the Representation of Interests’, Comparative Politics (10) 04 1977, 127–152.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed.New Haven: Yale University Press,1963.Google Scholar
Ashford, Douglas, Policy and Politics in Britain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene and Kagan, Robert A.Going by the Book. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian, Political Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.Google Scholar
Barnard, Chester, The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 1938.Google Scholar
Beer, Samuel, Modern British Politics. London: Faber and Faber, 1965.Google Scholar
Beer, Samuel, Britain Against Itself. New York: Norton, 1982.Google Scholar
Bolle, Mary Jane, ‘Cost-Benefit Studies for OSHA Standards: Use and Misuse’, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 77–5 E, August 22, 1977.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter and Wilson, James Q., ‘Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly (6) 09. 1961, pp. 219–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornell, Nina W., Noll, Roger G., Weingast, Barry, ‘Safety Regulation’, in Owen, Henry and Schultze, Charles L. (eds.), Setting National Priorities, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1976.Google Scholar
Cutler, Lloyd N. and Johnson, David R., ‘Regulation and the Political Process’, Yale Law Journal (84) 06 1975, 1395–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dales, J. H., Pollution, Property and Prices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Partha, Sen, Amartya and Marglin, Stephen, Guidelines for Project Evaluation. New York: United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 1972.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth C., Discretionary Justice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A. and Kamien, Morton J., ‘Externalities, Information and Alternative Collective Action’, in Haveman, Robert and Margolis, Julius (eds.), Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis. Chicago: Markham, 1970.Google Scholar
de Jouvenel, Bertrand, ‘Efficiency and Amenity’, in Arrow, Kenneth and Scitovsky, Tibor (eds.), Readings in Welfare Economics. London: Allen and Unwin, 1969.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Elkin, Stephen L., ‘Political Science and the Analysis of Public Policy’, Public Policy (22), Summer 1974. 399–422.Google Scholar
Elkin, Stephen L., ‘Economic and Political Rationality’, Polity (18), Winter 1985, 253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, Cynthia, The Politics of Pollution in Comparative Perspective. New York: McKay, 1975.Google Scholar
Esposito, John S. and Silverman, Larry, Vanishing Air: Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution. New York: Grossman, 1970.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale, 1977.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. Myrick, ‘Environmental Management as a Regulatory Process’, Discussion Paper D-4, Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, 01 1977.Google Scholar
Government Accounting Office, ‘Government Regulatory Activity: Justification, Processes’, Impacts and Alternatives’. Report to the Congress, June 3, 1977 (PAD 77–34).Google Scholar
Green, Mark, The Closed Enterprise. New York: Grossman, 1972.Google Scholar
Green, Mark and Waitzman, Norman, Business War on the Law: An Analysis of the Benefits of Federal Health/Safety Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Corporate Accountability Research Group, 1979.Google Scholar
Haefele, Edwin T., ‘A Plea for More Representative Government’. Philadelphia: Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1978.Google Scholar
Hardin, Charles M., Presidential Power and Accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974.Google Scholar
Heritage Foundation, Agenda ‘83. Washington, D.C. 1983.Google Scholar
Hill, Michael, ‘The Role of the British Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate in Air Pollution Control’, in Downing, Paul and Hanf, Kenneth (eds.) International Comparisons in Implementing Pollution Control. Boston: Kluwer-NijofT, 1983.Google Scholar
Johnson, Stanley P., The Politics of Environment. London: Tom Stacey, 1973.Google Scholar
Kelman, Steven, What Price Incentives? Boston: Auburn House, 1981.Google Scholar
Kneese, Alan and Schultze, Charles L., Pollution, Prices and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1975.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert A., Public Planning.New York: Norton, 1972.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton, 1979.Google Scholar
Maclntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. New York: Oxford, 1962.Google Scholar
McCoy, Charles and Playford, John, Apolitical Politics. New York: Crowell, 1964.Google Scholar
McKean, Roland N., ‘The Role of Analytical Aids’, in Gawthrop, Lewis (ed.), Administrative Process and Democratic Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von, Epistemological Problems of Economics. New York: Van Nostrand, 1960.Google Scholar
Morstein Marx, Fritz, ‘Administrative Regulation in Comparative Perspective, Law and Contemporary Problems (26) Spring 1961, 307–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Management and Budget, ‘The Costs of Regulation and Restrictive Practises’, Washington, D.C., 1974.Google Scholar
O'Riordan, Timothy, ‘The Role of Environmental Quality Objectives in the Politics of Pollution Control’ in O'Riordan, and Ralph d'Arge, (eds.) Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, vol.I. New York: Wiley, 1979.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. Economic Analysis of Law, 2nd ed.Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.Google Scholar
Prest, A. R. and Turvey, Ralph, ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey’, in American Economic Association and the Royal Economic Society, Surveys of Economic Theory: Resource Allocation. New York: St. Martin's, 1966.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Lionel, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nd ed.London: Macmillan, 1962.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan, ‘Effluent Charges: A Critique’, Canadian Journal of Economics (6), 11. 1973, 512–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan, ‘Market Models for Water Pollution Control: Their Strengths and Weaknesses’, Public Policy (25), Summer, 1977, 383–406.Google Scholar
Russell, Clifford S. ‘What Can We Get from Effluent Charges’, Policy Analysis (5), Spring 1979, 155–80.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. Foundations of Economic Analysis. New York: Atheneum, 1965.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J., Liberalism and the Limits of Justice New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Schultze, Charles, The Public Use of Private Interest. Washington, D.C., Brookings, 1977.Google Scholar
Self, Peter, Econocrats and the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K.Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Study on Federal Regulation, 95th Congress, Committee Print, 1977.Google Scholar
Shklar, Judith, ‘Decisionism’, in Freidrich, Carl (ed.), Rational Decision, Nomos VII. New York: Atherton, 1964.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Simon, Michael, ‘What We Did’, Regulation, July/August, 1979.Google Scholar
Soble, Stephen, ‘A Proposal for the Administrative Compensation of Victims of Toxic Substance Pollution’, Harvard Journal of Legislation (14), 1977, 694–96.Google Scholar
Solesbury, William, ‘Issues and Innovations in Environmental Policy in Britain, West. Germany, and California’, Policy Analysis (2), Winter, 1976, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard B., ‘The Reformation of American Administrative Law’, Harvard Law Review (88), 06, 1975, 1671–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storing, Herbert, ‘American Statesmanship: Old and New’, in Goldwin, Robert (ed.) Bureaucrats, Policy Analysts, Statesmen: Who Leads. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Neil, ‘Independent Adjudication and Occupational Safety and Health Policy. A Test for Administrative Court Theory’, Administrative Law Review (31), Spring, 1975, 177–204.Google Scholar
Tribe, Lawrence H., ‘Policy Science: Analyses or Ideology’, Philosophy and Public Affairs (2), Fall 1972, 65–110.Google Scholar
Tribe, Lawrence H., ‘Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality’, Southern California Law Review (46), 06 1973, pp. 617–660.Google Scholar
Tribe, Lawrence H., ‘Ways Not to Think About Plastic Trees: New Foundations for Environmental Law’, The Yale Law Journal (83), 06 1974, pp. 1315–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, Roberto, Knowledge and Politics. New York: Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Vogel, David, ‘Promoting Puralism: The Public Interest Movement in the American Reform Tradition’, Political Science Quarterly (95), Winter 1980/1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, David, ‘Cooperative Regulation: Environmental Protection in Great Britain’, The Public Interest (12) Summer, 1983, pp. 88–106.Google Scholar
Vogel, David, National Styles of Regulation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Weidenbaum, Murray L., ‘The New Wave of Government Regulation of Business’, American Enterprise Institute Reprint #37, February 1975.Google Scholar
Weidenbaum, Murray L., Defina, Robert, ‘The Cost of Federal Regulation of Economic Activity’, American Enterprise Institute Reprint #83, May 1978.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, Burton A., ‘Collective Action and the Distribution of Income; A Conceptual Approach’, in Haveman, Robert and Margolis, Julius (eds.), Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis. Chicago: Markham, 1970.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘The Self-Evaluating Organization’, in Speaking Truth to Power. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard, ‘A Critique of Utilitarianism’, in Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, Bernard, tilitarianism – For and Against, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (ed.), The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books, 1980.Google Scholar
Winston, Kenneth I. (ed.), The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon Fuller. Durham NC: Duke University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Wolf, Charles Jr., ‘A Theory of Non-Market Failures’, The Public Interest (55), Spring 1979, 114–33.Google Scholar
Zeckhauser, Richard and Nichols, Albert, ‘The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’ Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Study on Federal Regulation, Appendix to Vol. VI 95th Congress, Committee Print, 1978.Google Scholar