An emerging feature of the modern regulatory state in Britain and elsewhere is the promotion of self‐regulation. This paper examines the relationship between the state and self‐regulation in the context of the challenge of meeting public interest objectives. It draws on research on the policy and practice of self‐regulation in recent years in Britain. The paper argues that the institutions, processes and mechanisms of the modern regulatory state and the ‘better regulation’ agenda in Britain, notably those that aim to foster transparency and accountability, can assist in the achievement of public interest objectives in self‐regulatory schemes. We conclude that a ‘new regulatory paradigm’ can be put forward which involves a form of regulatory ‘subsidiarity’, whereby the achievement of regulatory outcomes can be delegated downwards to the regulated organizations and self‐regulatory bodies while being offset by increasing public regulatory oversight based on systems of accountability and transparency.
Research Highlights and Abstract This article provides the first detailed and evidence‐based account of the coalition government's approach to transport‐related carbon management. It exposes the existence of a ‘governance vacuum’ between the statutory target and a very weak devolved implementation system (i.e. ‘fuzzy governance’ and ‘fuzzy accountability’). Research in four major city regions reveals a systemic switch from an emphasis on carbon management and reduction towards economic growth and job creation. Officials within the policy design and delivery chain emphasise the manner in which the demands of democratic politics tend to frustrate meaningful policy change. A general demand by actors at the local level not for the discretions delivered by localism but for a more robust and centrally managed—even statutory—governance framework. The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport‐related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi‐level governance with the literature on ‘blame avoidance’ serves to reveal a complex system of ‘fuzzy governance’ and ‘fuzzy accountability’. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub‐national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy‐makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge.
A BST RA C T Many studies of privatisation and liberalisation in utility industries stress the importance of national institutions for reform. However, powerful transnational forces and cross-national policy convergence in telecommunications have led to a questioning of the role of institutions. Single sector studies are limited in their ability to assess the relative influence of sector-specific technical and economic forces in the policy process. This article presents a cross-sectoral and cross-national analysis of privatisation and liberalisation in telecommunications and electricity in Germany, France and Britain in terms of national institutions, techno-economic forces and ideas. Although institutions shape shorter-term policy responses and the emerging regulatory regimes, in the longer term their role is limited to the pace and timing of policy change rather than its impetus and direction. To understand the latter it is necessary to investigate sources of the key ideas which led to reform. The ideas were not embedded within institutions but originated from outside as a response of interests to techno-economic forces and from groups ideologically predisposed to favouring neo-liberal ideas.
Prospects for mitigating climate change require decarbonisation of the energy sector over relatively short time periods, coupled with significant changes to the way we consume energy. This is particularly true in the transport sector given the current levels of transport related greenhouse gas emissions, the heavy dependence on fossil fuels, and the uncertainty surrounding transition pathways to ultra-low carbon vehicles. There are policy responses aiming to reduce carbon emissions by changing travel behaviour, but prominent approaches share a common theme of seeking to change behaviour by focusing on the individual and their choices. These are the object of critics who maintain that effective change requires collective action at social, economic and cultural levels. This paper questions whether decision-makers are relying on these choice-based approaches to change travel behaviour and, if so, how effective they expect them to be. We address this through analysis of over 50 interviews with policy stakeholders in England and Scotland. We find dominant policy approaches do focus on individual choices, but significantly it is not because decision makers have faith in their effectiveness. These approaches persist in policy on carbon reduction for two reasons. One is appeal to a politically powerful, but incoherent, discourse of individualism. The second is that decision-makers do not want significant behavioural change. There is an imperative of economic growth and a firm belief that a strong economy is linked to higher traffic levels, and that to reduce the demand for travel is to risk economic damage. We argue that these beliefs about the relation between travel demand and prosperity are narrowly defined and contestable for empirical and normative reasons. If there is to be a significant change in the approach to intervening in travel demand there is an urgency to engage in the politics of behaviour change a meta-level behaviour change challenge.
This paper seeks to understand how the UK government's headline climate change targets are translated into action at the local level in the transport sector drawing on the findings of research in two English regions. In doing so, these headline targets are identified as a symbolic meta‐policy that results in little action on the ground and which challenges established conceptions of policy implementation. Both the ‘meta’ and ‘symbolic’ aspects of the policy offer part of the explanation for the lack of substantive action on the ground. As a meta‐policy, the headline targets across government require the elaboration of other policies at other levels such as targets for government departments and local authorities, but these are largely absent, leaving the meta‐policy without teeth. Over time, these headline targets have developed into a symbolic policy, serving political goals but having little practical effectiveness.
Norway and Switzerland are two western Europe states that are not members of the European Union (EU), and they are among a number of small and economically open states in which reform of economic sectors is seen to be incremental and reactive. This article poses two questions about the reform of telecommunications and electricity in the two countries. First, what impact has nonmembership of the EU had on the reforms? Second, have their small and open economies and policymaking systemsconceptualized as "social corporatism" in Norway and "liberal corporatism" in Switzerland-had a decisive impact? Some influence from the EU is evident, particularly in telecommunications, but parallels with EU states indicate that nonmembership of the EU, though influential, is not decisive. Although national characteristics matter, social and liberal forms of corporatism are shown to have limited utility. The "actor-centered institutionalism" approach, which allows a more nuanced analysis of actors and national institutions, is better at explaining the reforms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.