Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-31T04:19:14.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Preventing Capture Through Consumer Empowerment Programs

Some Evidence From Insurance Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Daniel Schwarcz
Affiliation:
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Daniel Carpenter
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
David A. Moss
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In many regulatory settings, consumers and citizens face a collective action problem in advocating for their preferred outcomes, whereas regulated entities can coordinate to overcome free rider problems. The resulting imbalance in participation can, in some cases, produce outcomes that are “consistently or repeatedly directed away from the public interest toward the interest of the regulated industry by the intent and action of the industry itself.” In the classic story, such regulatory capture occurs through industry payment of rents to regulators, including explicit bribes, promises of future employment, or political contributions. However, more recent literature emphasizes that one-sided participation in regulation can also produce capture through cultural and behavioral forces. Similarly, industry-dominated participation in regulatory processes may generate “information capture,” by which industry exerts substantial control over regulatory outcomes by producing “uncontrolled and excessive” amounts of information.

In recent years, academic interest in limiting these forms of regulatory capture has skyrocketed. One approach to preventing capture that has gained some traction in recent decades is the creation of consumer empowerment programs that directly enhance the capacity of consumer representatives to participate in regulatory processes. These programs come in two basic varieties. First, proxy advocacy relies on independent government entities that are tasked with representing the public interest in designated regulatory proceedings. These programs became particularly prominent in state regulation of utility rates during the 1970s and 1980s. Second, tripartite consumer empowerment programs seek to amplify the voice of nongovernment public interest groups that would ordinarily be under-represented in the regulatory fray. Examples include statutorily required consumer advisory panels for regulators and programs that reimburse consumer groups for the cost of participating in regulatory proceedings.

Type
Chapter
Information
Preventing Regulatory Capture
Special Interest Influence and How to Limit it
, pp. 365 - 396
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Stigler, George J., “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2 (1971): 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwak, James, “Cultural Capture and the Financial Crisis,” Chapter 4 of the current volume; Brett McDonnell and Daniel Schwarcz, “Regulatory Contrarians,” North Carolina Law Review 89 (2011): 1629Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy, “Administrative Law, Filter Failure, and Information Capture,” Duke Law Journal 59 (2010): 1321Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey P. and Rosenfeld, Gerald, “Intellectual Hazard: How Conceptual Biases in Complex Organizations Contributed to the Crisis of 2008,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 33 (2009): 807Google Scholar
, Wagner, “Administrative Law, Filter Failure, and Information Capture”; Rachel Barkow, “Insulating Agencies: Avoiding Capture through Institutional Design,” Texas Law Review 89 (2010): 15
Bagley, Nicholas, “Agency Hygiene,” Texas Law Review 8 (2010): 1Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John, Responsive Regulation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar
Revesz, Richard C., “Federalism and Environmental Regulation: A Public Choice Analysis,” Harvard Law Review 115 (2001): 553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel, “Protection without Capture,” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb and Yackee, Susan Webb, “A Bias toward Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the Bureaucracy,” Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 128Google Scholar
Mayer, Robert N., Zick, Cathleen D., and Burton, John R., “Consumer Representation and Local Telephone Rates,” Journal of Consumer Affairs 23 (1989): 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William, “An Alternative to Capture Theory of Regulation: The Case of State Public Utility Commissions,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, William T., “Alternative Models of the Regulatory Process: Public Utility Regulation in the States,” Western Political Quarterly 35 (1982): 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlechild, Stephen, “Stipulated Settlements, the Consumer Advocate, and Utility Regulation in Florida,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 35 (2009): 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, William T., The Politics of Public Utility Regulation (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983)Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael C. and Sabel, Charles E., “A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism,” Columbia Law Review 98 (1998): 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karkkainen, Bradley C., “‘New Governance’ in Legal Thought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping,” Minnesota Law Review 89 (2004): 471Google Scholar
Lobel, Orly, “The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought,” Minnesota Law Review 89 (2004): 342Google Scholar
Fung, Archon and Wright, Erik, “Countervailing Power in Empowered Participatory Governance, in Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, eds. , Fung and , Wright (New York: Verso, 2003)Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, Mark, “Empowering Stakeholders: Limits on Collaboration as Basis for Flexible Regulation,” William and Mary Law Review 41 (2000): 411Google Scholar
Tobias, Carl, “Great Expectations and Mismatched Compensation: Government Sponsored Public Participation in Proceedings of the Consumer Product Safety Commission,” Washington University Law Quarterly 64 (1986): 1101Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth, The Political Economy of Regulation: The Case of Insurance (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1988)Google Scholar
Randall, Susan, “Insurance Regulation in the United States: Regulatory Federalism and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners,” Florida State University Law Review 26 (1999): 625Google Scholar
Schwarcz, Daniel, “Regulating Insurance Sales or Selling Insurance Regulation,” Minnesota Law Review 94 (2009): 1707Google Scholar
Harrington, Scott E., “Effects of Prior Approval Rate Regulation of Auto Insurance,” in Deregulating Property-Liability Insurance: Restoring Competition and Increasing Market Efficiency, ed. Cummins, J. David (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Rosenfield, Harvey, “Auto Insurance: Crisis and Reform,” University of Memphis Law Review 29 (1998): 69Google Scholar
Vartabedian, Ralph, “Good Driver? Bad Driver? Insurers May Wonder Too,” Los Angeles Times (January 17, 2007)
Goldsmith, Elizabeth B., “Consumer Empowerment: Public Policy and Insurance Regulation,” International Journal of Consumer Studies 29 (2005): 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, Timothy, “The National Association of Insurance Commissioners and Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159 (2011): 2043Google Scholar
Schwarcz, Daniel, “Reevaluating Standardized Insurance Policies,” University of Chicago Law Review 77 (2011): 1263Google Scholar
Thomas, Trevor, “Who's Watching the NAIC Henhouse,” National Underwriter Life & Health (November 22, 2010)
Dahl, Robert A., Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas, “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×