Introduction. A new field: comparative law and regulation

Abstract

When individuals post their photographs, shopping habits, and other personal data to social networking sites they are tracked and potentially harassed by the scores of corporate actors with access to their data. As governments worldwide have sprung into action to address this regulatory problem, industry groups and consumer advocates have also mobilized. To give but one example, in the past three years, the world's leading social networking company has defended lawsuits claiming unfair consumer tracking in the United States and the European Union (EU), has settled administrative and civil enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Belgian Data Protection Authority, and the Hamburg Data Protection Authority, and has lobbied for looser consumer-tracking rules in the European Union, the United States, Latin American countries, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation system. 1 Although there are substantial limits on what social networking sites can do with personal data in the European Union and many Latin American countries, there are relatively few restrictions in the United States and various Asian jurisdictions. Parabens are a group of chemicals widely used in cosmetics and personal care products. Although they significantly extend the shelf life of creams and sprays, they have also been linked to cancer and other types of health concerns. The regulatory battle over whether to ban or restrict their use is occurring in legislatures, administrative agencies, and international organizations throughout the world. Multinational corporations, members of the scientific community, and environmental and consumer groups have sparred over parabens in a vast array of venues-to name just a few, the

Temporary legislation, better regulation, and experimentalist governance: An empirical study

“…Finally, while this study focused on Israel, it can serve as a first step in developing a comparative‐empirical research agenda (Levi‐Faur ; Arter, ,b; Bignami ). Future empirical studies can examine the prevalence of temporary legislation in other countries, as well as the actual use of temporary legislation in other parliaments, in order to see to what extent the insights from the current study can be extended to other jurisdictions.…”

“…Future comparative studies can more systematically examine the relationship between the prevalence of temporary legislation and the extent that different countries have adopted and implemented a better lawmaking policy program. More broadly, future studies can examine the extent to which explanations offered in the scholarship about the diffusion and convergence of better regulation programs across jurisdictions can also explain similarities and differences in the use of temporary legislation across jurisdictions (for recent overviews, see Popelier ; Bignami ).…”

Genealogies of cost–benefit analysis in transatlantic regulatory cooperation

“…Their work highlights the EU's more ''proactive'' approach in comparison with the US's ''reactive'' approach to regulating their respective markets. As a result, EU economic regulation invites producers and labor groups to the negotiating table early on through institutional channels in a neo-corporativist fashion (Bignami, 2016). On the other hand, the US regulatory focus is reactive insofar as it invites ex-post a plurality of stakeholders to participate in the regulatory process after the proposed rule is released (Bignami, 2010).…”