Distinctively Dysfunctional: ‘State Capitalism 2.0’ and the Indian Power Sector

State intervention in India has persisted but has proved far from immune to critiques of traditional dirigisme. An examination of the power sector shows that waves of reforms since 1991 have together created a hybrid and regionally differentiated state-market system. Blurring the public-private boundary, this reinvented “state capitalism 2.0” displays both refurbished modes of intervention and new governance arrangements with private players. Nonetheless, as the power sector’s continually dismal condition suggests, this state-capitalist hybrid has not (yet) provided a coherent alternative to older dirigisme or the Anglo-American mode of “deregulatory” liberalization. Instead, between 1991 and 2014 its ad hoc, layered emergence generated distinctive forms of dysfunction. Coupled with competitive politics, its ever-increasing institutional complexity rendered it internally incoherent and vulnerable to rent seeking on multiple fronts. Power sector evidence suggests that state intervention in India has remained simultaneously indispensable and dogged by persistent administrative and financial difficulties. Examining its internal institutional transformations helps to explain the apparently contradictory nature of the contemporary Indian state: at once business-friendly, populist, and often underperforming

Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

This introduction lays the groundwork for this Special Issue by providing an overview of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), and by introducing three main analytical themes. The first theme concerns the emergence and continuation of the APP. The contributions show that the emergence of the APP can be attributed to international factors, including the United States' rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and its search for an alternative arena for global climate governance, and other countries' wish to maintain good relations with the US; as well as domestic factors, such as the presence of bureaucratic actors in favour of the Partnership, alignment with domestic priorities, and the potential for reaping economic benefits through participation. The second theme examines the nature of the Partnership, concluding that it falls on the very soft side of the hard-soft law continuum and that while being branded as a public-private partnership, governments remain in charge. Under the third theme, the influence which the APP exerts on the post-2012 United Nations (UN) climate change negotiations is scrutinised. The contributions show that at the very least, the APP is exerting some cognitive influence on the UN discussions through its promotion of a sectoral approach. The introduction concludes with outlining areas for future research. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Market Exchange and the Rule of Law:Confidence in predictability

Law and economics is a significant field of analysis in legal studies and in economics, although there have been a number of controversies about how best to understand the relationship between economic relations and the regulatory role of law. Rather than surveying this field and offering a criticism of various theories and engaging in the dispute between different perspectives on the relationship between the two, in this article I take an approach rooted in neither mainstream economics nor in formal legal philosophy. Rather drawing on a recent well-rounded statement of behavioural economics and a synthesis of previous work on the narrative of the rule of law, I seek to explore how and why contemporary capitalism seems to have become so tied up with the rule of law, and what this might tell us more generally about the role of law in market relations. This analysis goes beyond the relatively commonplace observation that capitalism requires property rights, contract law and market institutionalisation to function, to ask ‘what exactly is it about the rule of law that seems so necessary to establishing and maintaining market exchange(s)?

Balancing experimentalist and hierarchical governance in European Union electricity and telecommunications regulation: A matter of degrees

While the widespread diffusion of experimentalism across sectors and polities is well documented, less is known about the extent of the shift to this non‐hierarchical form of governance, which continues to coexist with traditional hierarchical governance and involves more inclusive rulemaking and revision based on review of alternative implementation experiences. By comparing and process‐tracing electricity and telecommunications regulation in the European Union, we find diversity in experimentalism over time and across two sectors often considered similar. We explain varying degrees of experimentalism with strategic uncertainty and the constellation of preferences, which we label “de facto polyarchy.” Thus, we confirm the emphasis on uncertainty documented in the experimentalist literature, while addressing a conventional critique by also highlighting the relevance of “politics.” Moreover, while corroborating the common spread of experimentalism, we suggest that an analytical framework based on ideal types offers the best route forward to develop comparative analysis of experimentalism and non‐hierarchical forms of governance more broadly

The Juridification Process in Italy and the Influence of EU Law

This chapter describes the juridification process and its implication for Italian administrative law. First, it briefly analyses some tools—many of them permanent—aimed at relieving and simplifying the Italian legal environment. It then goes on to examine the paths that juridification has followed in some areas: bioethics, sport, food safety and environment. In addition, it illustrates the role of the Courts, the legislature, and the administration, and the tools each of them have used (binding norms, general principles and soft law) to explain how some interests have received legal protection. The chapter furthermore deals with juridification in connection to the EU integration process. In particular, it analyses, on the one hand, the influence that supranational law and other institutional measures (e.g. countryspecific recommendations) exert on some areas of the Italian administrative legislation and, on the other hand, the effects that the multilevel dimension of jurisdictionalisation has on one specific aspect of the Italian system of administrative justice