Smart regulation

Gunningham, Neil; Sinclair, Darren

doi:10.22459/rt.02.2017.08

Cited by 118 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An example of this is NSW's boarding houses legislation, which prescribes for all registrable boarding houses standards conceived of in relation to the traditional boarding house form (a subdivided mansion), but which in reality cannot be met in today's room share apartment, with the result that the latter are hardly seen as boarding houses. Principles of 'smart regulation' (Gillingham and Sinclair 2017) are useful here, emphasising flexibility and scope for variation to suit individual circumstances, and sector stakeholder participation in setting and road-testing standards.…”

Section: Access and Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inquiry into the future of the private rental sector

Hulse¹,

Parkinson²,

Martin³

2018

AHURI Final Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

iii AHURI AHURI is a national independent research network with an expert not-for-profit research management company, AHURI Limited, at its centre.AHURI's mission is to deliver high quality research that influences policy development and practice change to improve the housing and urban environments of all Australians.Using high quality, independent evidence and through active, managed engagement, AHURI works to inform the policies and practices of governments and the housing and urban development industries, and stimulate debate in the broader Australian community.AHURI undertakes evidence-based policy development on a range of priority policy topics that are of interest to our audience groups, including housing and labour markets, urban growth and renewal, planning and infrastructure development, housing supply and affordability, homelessness, economic productivity, and social cohesion and wellbeing. AcknowledgementsThis material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and state and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible.AHURI Limited also gratefully acknowledges the contributions, both financial and in-kind, of its university research partners who have helped make the completion of this material possible.

show abstract

Section: Access and Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inquiry into the future of the private rental sector

Hulse¹,

Parkinson²,

Martin³

2018

AHURI Final Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, generally speaking, hybridization means the combination of different institutional logics. In this sense, the term is more specific than the generic use of hybrid type seen in policy instrument literature, where it is simply synonymous with ''mix'' (see: Gunningham and Grabosky 1998;Jordan et al 2005). …”

Section: Hybridizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy instruments are a fundamental component of public policies. Policy instruments are often a result of mediation within the policy design process, whenever decision makers reshape existing instruments without introducing any real innovation. This results in imitation, layering and ambiguity in tool choice selection, and raises the theoretical problem of the logic according to which decision makers choose certain specific policy instruments rather than others. Decision makers may have different reasons for choosing certain specific instruments, although these reasons should be connected to the two main purposes of decision-making, that is, the search for effectiveness and the construction of a shared sense, a common acceptance. Thus, the choice of instruments is a question of potentially conflicting drivers that decision makers have to cope with within a specific decisional situation, when asked to solve those problems that have arisen. This paper examines this question and offers an analytical framework based on the two main factors in terms of which the selection of instruments is channelled and assessed: legitimacy and instrumentality. The boundaries created by how decision makers perceive these two dimensions mean that only four selection patterns can be chosen by decision makers: hybridization, stratification, contamination or routinization.

show abstract

“…Both scholars challenged the chief contractual paradigms on transactions and exchange of the common law tradition, in a way closing the gap with the doctrinal legacy of civil law systems. The relational theory persuaded that "Contracting rests on moral foundations" (Campbell, 2004, p. 645), and thus, must become a principled process (Gunningham & Sinclair, 1999). The formulation of frameworks with relational components like SC may overcome the perceived ambiguity of the original relational theory denounced by critics (Barnett, 1992), and should help make a more realistic sense of the growingly complex and continuously changing models of exchange of the digital economy, at levels hardly discussed before.…”

Section: Preliminary Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SC compares with few other proactive initiatives in the contractual management field and the legal design stream of practice. But in general, except for some instances of functional private governance microsystems such as Ebay or Paypal, governance institutions/schemes are poorly equipped to enable alternative strategies or to deal with complex (Gunningham & Sinclair, 1999), wicked (Termeer et al, 2015) and emerging problems such as the challenges of legal automation and the use of computational methods in the interpretation of rules.…”

Section: The Governance Capacities Of Scmentioning

confidence: 99%