Two spheres of regulation: Balancing social and economic goals

Abstract

Independent regulatory authorities hold comprehensive policy mandates that cover both economic and social goals. They take on various roles in market regulation, competition policy, consumer protection, and labor inspection. This article questions whether policymakers are driven by different rationales when delegating the realization of social, as opposed to economic goals, and analyzes how regulators accommodate their various roles in practice. The conceptual framework links the literature on delegation and organizational models. Comparative analysis of postal policy in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom covers a serious area of potential conflict between social and economic regulation. Variation in delegation points to the relevance of instrumental considerations, but also to the politics of institutional arrangements. Variation in regulatory practice shows that organizational models make a difference in accommodating conflict. The article makes a strong case that social and economic regulation need to be addressed as two distinct, yet interacting spheres. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd

The Formal Delegation of Regulatory Decisions in the Telecommunication Sector: An Explanation Using Classification Trees

“…In that sense, we draw on certain theoretical factors that have been used to explain the delegation of regulatory competences at the organization level and test them at the decision level. This is important, in our view, because the different regulatory decision characteristics fit differently in the various formal delegation logics that previous research has stressed (Eckert, , ; Majone, ; Thatcher & Sweet, ). We also argue that, in addition to these decision‐making logics, some other institutional factors at the country level or the market level affect whether regulatory decisions are delegated.…”

Market regulation between economic and ecological values: Regulatory authorities and dilemmas of responsiveness

“…Regulatory authorities need to balance disparate set of goals (Alon-Barkat and Gilad, 2016;Carpenter, 2010;Eckert, 2017;Hyman and Kovacic, 2013;Ottow, 2015;Van Veen, 2014). This requires a sufficient degree of bureaucratic responsiveness to adequately address the multitude of often conflicting goals and values.…”

Measuring and Comparing the Regulatory Welfare State: Social Objectives in Public Procurement

“…The literature on the regulatory welfare state (RWS) provides analytical leverage in studying these developments (Windholz and Hodge 2013; Levi-Faur 2014; Benish and Levi-Faur, this volume). Yet scholars interested in the RWS have mostly focused on social policies, and there are few analyses that study how regulation addresses social objectives in other policy fields, such as the provision of utilities or financial products (Haber 2018; Eckert 2018; Schwartz 2009; Hartlapp and Rauh 2013). This is unfortunate, because regulation has the potential to create more solidarity and equality among different groups of market participants, create social cohesion in societies, and promote justice in access or consumption of goods and services that link directly to economic policy.…”