Transcending the deregulation debate? Regulation, risk, and the enforcement of health and safety law in theUK

Abstract

This paper considers the context for the development of the concept of responsive regulation, namely the transcending of the deregulation debate. It argues that claims regarding responsive regulation when allied to risk-based rationales for enforcement can, in fact, allow a "deregulatory" momentum to develop. This argument is grounded with reference to a case study of the regulation of workplace health and safety in the UK, with a particular focus upon the period 2000-2010. The paper casts doubt on the relevance and robustness of the concept of responsive regulation. In a context that might have been fertile ground for developing genuinely responsive regulatory policy, empirically we find the development of policies that are better described as "regulatory degradation." Thus we argue in this paper that, whatever the intentions of its proponents, there is a logical affinity between responsive regulation, and effective de-regulation, and that it is this affinity that has provided a convenient political rationale for the emergence of a neo-liberal regulatory settlement in the UK.

Does the European Union have a reverse gear? Policy dismantling in a hyperconsensual polity

“…While deregulation is about legislative quantity, better regulation is supposed to be about legislative quality (Tombs and Whyte 2013). Compared to the early 1990s, the focus of the discourse had therefore shifted from subsidiarity -questioning the merits for EU action -to proportionality -making EU action more efficient (Jeppesen 2000: 99).…”

Policing for Whom?

“…Indeed, they have a very different relationship with the targets of their intervention. There is a large body of research literature that shows how regulatory agencies in advanced capitalist states generally seek consensual rule compliance on the part of the parties they regulate, even where corporate offences have the most deadly and serious consequences (Tombs and Whyte ). Notwithstanding these observations, it remains the case that all forms of regulation in advanced capitalist states also, actually or potentially, involve some process of ‘policing’ or formal law enforcement.…”

Workplace Violence: Examining Interpersonal and Impersonal Violence among Truck Drivers

“…In our view, such debates, while couched in empirical terms, often contain implicit ideological positions (see Almond and Gray ), given that powerful elites in society occupy structurally advantageous positions from which they can influence the ways in which laws are both designed and implemented. For instance, in the area of workplace safety, violations by employers are often viewed as regulatory offenses ( mala prohibita ), a position that is often challenged by researchers who argue that some of these violations should be viewed as crimes ( mala in se ), especially when such violations are repeated by employers in a recidivist manner (see Snider ; Almond , ; Tombs and Whyte , ; Bittle and Snider ).…”