What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis

The concept of regulation is believed to suffer from a lack of shared understanding. Yet, the maturation of the field raises the question whether this conclusion is still valid. By taking a new methodological approach towards this question of conceptual consolidation, this study assesses how regulation is conceived in the most-cited articles in six social science disciplines. Four main conclusions are drawn. First, there is a remarkable absence of explicit definitions. Second, the scope of the concept is vast, which requires us to talk about regulation in rather abstract terms. Third, scholars largely agree that ‘prototype regulation’ is characterised by interventions which are intentional and direct – involving binding standard-setting, monitoring and sanctioning – and exercised by public-sector actors on the economic activities of private-sector actors. Fourth, while there is considerable variation in research concerns, this variation cannot be attributed to disciplinary differences. Instead, our findings support the portrayal of the field as interdisciplinary, including a shared conception of regulation

The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences

There is broad consensus in the literature on regulatory enforcement and compliance that politics matters. However, there is little scholarly convergence on what politics is or rigorous theorization and empirical testing of how politics matters. Many enforcement and compliance studies omit political variables altogether. Among those that address political influences on regulatory outcomes, politics has been defined in myriad ways and, too often, left undefined. Even when political constructs are explicitly operationalized, the mechanisms by which they influence regulatory outcomes are thinly hypothesized or simply ignored. If politics is truly as important to enforcement and compliance outcomes as everyone in the field seems to agree, regulatory scholarship must make a more sustained and systematic effort to understand their relationship, because overlooking this connection risks missing what is actually driving regulatory outcomes. This article examines how the construct of “politics” has been conceptualized in regulatory theory and analyzes how it has been operationalized in empirical studies of regulatory enforcement and compliance outcomes. It brings together scholarship across disciplines that rarely speak but have much to say to one another on this subject in order to constitute a field around the politics of regulation. The goal is to sharpen theoretical and empirical understandings of when and how regulation works by better accounting for the role politics plays in its enforcement

Executive control of bureaucracy and presidential cabinet appointments in East Asian democracies

This article examines the role of cabinet appointments in controlling the bureaucracy in presidential democracies. I demonstrate how administrative challenges stemming from the structure of the bureaucracy shape presidential choice of ministers. Analyzing a sample of four East Asian cases from 1986 through 2013, I find that presidents are more likely to select ministers from the civil service as bureaucracies are more professionalized, controlling for several political factors. Further evidence from qualitative interviews and case studies suggests that, in professionalized systems equipped with a sizable pool of talent but lacking responsiveness, presidents tend to promote ideologically aligned senior civil servants. However, in politicized systems, where presidents easily obtain responsiveness but face a low level of competence, policy experts tend to be selected from outside the bureaucracy. My findings have important implications for the regulatory governance and state capacity of East Asia, demonstrating the value of balancing between responsiveness and competence

Wettbewerb und Regulierung

Wettbewerb und Regulierung werfen sowohl aus einer wirtschafts- als auch aus einer politikwissenschaftlichen Perspektive interessante Fragestellungen auf und haben daher in beiden Disziplinen umfangreiche Beachtung gefunden. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt eine Übersicht über beide Herangehensweisen. Dabei wer-den zunächst die grundlegenden Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten offengelegt (Abschnitt 2), bevor die disziplinären Schwerpunkte in der Analyse vorgestellt, und aus Sicht der jeweils anderen Disziplin kommentiert werden (Abschnitte 3 und 4). Wir kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass beide Sichtweisen in erster Linie komplementär sind und sich gegenseitig befruchten können