Courage, regulatory responsibility, and the challenge of higher‐order reflexivity

Abstract

Contemporary regulators must respond to ever‐increasing societal demands in various domains. Regulators must cope with these demands under conditions of extreme epistemic scarcity and ideological divide. This leaves regulators perplexed about what action they should take. Regulatory praxis offers two primary responses to this moral and epistemic dilemma: technical canonization and reflexive regulation. While these two approaches represent contrary regulatory philosophies, they suffer from two common blind spots: (a) disregard of the critical role of discretionary judgment in regulatory action; and (b) disregard of the dilemma of higher‐order reflexivity. The article explores the idea of higher‐order reflexivity in the regulatory context. This exploration renders visible the abysses that are faced by regulators as they attempt to resolve regulatory dilemmas through a cognizant and introspective process. The article argues that the Socratic concept of courage and the idea of forward‐looking responsibility provide a plausible framework for thinking about the challenge of regulatory judgment. It concludes with a discussion of the legal and institutional mechanisms that could both facilitate and put to scrutiny the realization of this ideal (but noting also several features of the contemporary regulatory system which constitute potential barriers).

Compliance: 14 questions

“…Our 14 questions prompt consideration of these different factors and the ways they interact. As other regulatory studies scholars have pointed out, it is up to regulators to have the skill and ultimately the courage (Perez 2014) to craft solutions and alliances that are responsive to the complex social, economic and political contexts in which they work (Baldwin and Black 2008;Braithwaite 2013). …”

Reflexively stumbling towards sustainability : understanding social learning in regional governance networks

“…The retrospective studies of the five different regional governance networks in sustainability transitions in the Netherlands (Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5) confirm that reflexivity is an important property of a network (Wals, 2007;Mezirow, 1991;Perez, 2014) that can lead to effective social learning and associated sustainability outcomes.…”

“…The challenge remains to create a reflexive governance network which is able to adjust, reorient and change in a flexible and sometimes even a surprising way (Guijt, 2008;Sotarauta and Srinivas, 2006). The aim of fostering reflexivity is that the network becomes more responsive and responsible as well as more courageous (Perez, 2014) and anticipatory (Macnaghten et al, 2014;Stilgoe et al, 2013).…”

“…The concept indicates that actors systematically have doubts about their own assumptions and practices and seek to find an enlightened alternative (Perez, 2014). An attitude of reflexivity can unlock the tacit knowledge and understanding that actors have of their experience and thus help them to utilise this knowledge in future practices (Malthouse et al, 2014).…”

“…Even so, a 'reflexive turn' has been emphasized, to be seen as a reflexive change being related to a change in learning outcomes (Beers and van Mierlo, 2017). Reflexivity is seen as important for system innovation, learning and sustainable transitions, it is an approach 'that systematically raises doubt about its own assumptions and practices and seeks to find an enlightened alternative' (Perez, 2014). It can unlock the tacit knowledge and understanding that actors have of their experience and us this to generate knowledge for future practice (Malthouse et al, 2014) These acts of critical reflexivity belong to a social learning process (Groot, 2008) because social learning requires reflection and reflexivity throughout the entire process, if only to improve the quality of the process itself and to monitor change progress throughout (Wals 2007, p.41).…”