Who Regulates Phones, Television, and the Internet? What Makes a Communications Regulator Independent and Why It Matters

Wu, Irene S.

doi:10.1017/s1537592708081905

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fourth strand classifies descriptive studies that analyze the effect of regulatory framework, regulatory process and institutional endowment on growth of the telecommunications sector. These studies have tried to provide the conditions for satisfactory performance of telecom regulatory system (Levy and Spiller, (1994)), have analyzed the effect of absence of a regulator in dealing with interconnection (Spiller and Cardilli, 1997), role of institutional endowment in success of the telecom reform process (Goldstein, 2002;CUTS, 2008), comparison of a country's process of liberalization and privatization with other countries (Bartle, 2002;Makhaya, and Roberts, 2003;Mariscal, 2004;Ratto-Nielsen, 2004;Thatcher, 2005;Wu, 2008). Other researchers have undertaken a two-country comparison to analyze the similarities and diversity in the process of liberalization, privatization, setting up regulator and regulatory process (Young et al, 2005;Coen, 2005;Painter and Wong, 2008;Liu and Jayakar, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indian telecom regulatory framework in comparison with five countries: structure, role description and funding

Hallur

Sane

2018

DPRG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a cross-country qualitative comparative analysis of telecom regulatory frameworks of five countries with that of India. Adopting an institutionalist approach, this paper contributes to understanding of how institutional frameworks in these five countries are structured as compared to that in India so as to ensure division of the authority and scope of the regulator vis-a-vis that of the ministry, and the bureaucracy; financial autonomy of the regulator; redressal of grievances of individual consumers; and modification in the framework to cater to convergence of telecom and broadcasting. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on literature review of research papers, secondary research and documents published by the regulators of the five countries. The research methodology used is qualitative comparative analysis case-based research of five countries. The variables for comparison have been sourced from the World Bank Handbook for Evaluating Infrastructure Regulatory System. The researcher has adopted qualitative research method to bring forth the similarity, as well as the diversity in the regulatory setup of the five countries in comparison with India. Findings Analysis reveals that there is an absence of clear role definition for policy formulating body, the DoT and the regulatory body, the TRAI. The involvement of a number of bodies leads to duplication of regulatory functions in the TRAI, DoT and the Telecom Commission. Secondly, with respect to standards, compliance and spectrum management, the TEC and WPC function as divisions of DoT; however, the TRAI is entrusted with ensuring interoperability among service providers as well as spectrum management. This leads to duplication of regulatory functions and absence of a single authority. Lastly, funding of the TRAI is done through the departmental allocation given to DoT alone with no additional funds coming in the form of regulatory fees. This is seen to be specific to TRAI as other sector regulators in India have been empowered to collect fees from industry participants. The Indian framework shows two commonalities in comparison with the five countries; firstly, India has adopted self-regulation through the setting up of the Telco-consumer group-led consumer redressal process. The second similarity being convergence of the regulatory functions performed by the TRAI for the telecom as well as the information and broadcasting ministries, although the two ministries continue to function independently. Originality/value The paper furthers the understanding of the good practices in the design of telecom regulatory framework. It brings out the similarity and diversity in these frameworks. And, most importantly, it highlights limitations that the Indian telecom regulatory framework has in areas of role definition for the regulator, its autonomy and regulation of telecom-media convergence.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indian telecom regulatory framework in comparison with five countries: structure, role description and funding

Hallur

Sane

2018

DPRG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) have proliferated across a wide range of countries and sectors (Beblavy 2001; Gilardi 2002; Christensen & Lægreid 2005; Jordana & Levi‐Faur 2005; Gilardi et al . 2006; Levi‐Faur & Jordana 2006; Wu 2008; Jordana et al . 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The independence of IRAs from the government and from the regulated market is commonly associated with a set of expertise‐related, professional, and political requirements for IRA board members that are supposed to guarantee consistency and independent decision‐making (Wu 2008). Research related to regulators' pre‐ and postterm experience (where do regulators come from, and where do they go after serving their terms on regulatory boards?)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quo Vadis? Career paths of Brazilian regulators

Peci

Santos

Araújo

2020

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research about professional trajectories of regulators highlights the exchange of personnel from independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) to the private sector, mainly based on US evidence. However, current studies indicate that revolving doors in different contexts may share more nuances, reflecting the role of different political institutions. Here we rely on sequence analysis to explore the trajectories of 117 Brazilian board members of IRAs, investigating: What are their typical professional trajectories? Which career path receives most of the benefits in postterm positions? The analysis uncovers five clusters of career paths in which most regulators do not transition between the public and private sectors but still benefit in direct and indirect ways from serving terms in IRAs. A different mix of market/bureaucratic/political incentives plays a role in the patterns of professional trajectories we uncover in Brazil. Depending on the context, regulators' trajectories might be driven by either market or state forces.

show abstract

“…Regulatory regimes are a temporal manifestation of this relationship and specify the limits and boundaries of more or less long-term state-market interactions (Senn, 2011). 1 Given the number of possible variations in regulatory configurations (Berg et al, 2000;Wu, 2008) it is well known that regulatory regimes vary substantially spatially -across different jurisdictions and policy sectors -and at any given point in time, regulatory activity in different locations can appear to be quite dissimilar (Bollhoff, 2002;Brewster and Goldsmith, 2007;Jasanoff, 1990;Lodge, 2011). That is, different countries adopt similar or different types of regulation, or select various configurations of elements in their regulatory arrangements, and this can result in distinct national or sectoral differences in regulatory style, process and content (Freeman, 1985;Kagan, 1991Kagan, , 2001Knill, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and time: temporal patterns in regulatory development

Newman

Howlett

2014

International Review of Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the complex decision-making that goes into policy choices for regulatory regimes, it would seem intuitive that such regimes might develop under distinct national styles. By revisiting several historical models of regulatory development, including Bernstein's classic life-cycle model, and then by analyzing six case studies from the US and UK, for example, we explore the possibility that regulatory regimes vary more prominently along the temporal dimension rather than along spatial ones. We conclude that regulatory regimes have similar developmental patterns, although the time spent at each stage in the process can vary significantly according to unique domestic factors. Points for practitionersExisting theories of regulation would suggest that regulatory activity should either follow identical development trajectories in different countries or it should be entirely idiosyncratic in every jurisdiction in which it is used. Clearly neither is true, as some regulatory regimes display similar qualities and development patterns, while others appear to be unique. A comparison of regulatory activities in the US and UK reveals that regulatory regimes in these countries develop through similar stages along similar pathways, but that the rate of development and the transition through the stages can occur at different speeds. This development is mainly stimulated by periodic crises that force changes in regulation.

show abstract

Who Regulates Phones, Television, and the Internet? What Makes a Communications Regulator Independent and Why It Matters

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Indian telecom regulatory framework in comparison with five countries: structure, role description and funding

Indian telecom regulatory framework in comparison with five countries: structure, role description and funding

Quo Vadis? Career paths of Brazilian regulators

Regulation and time: temporal patterns in regulatory development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About