Regulatory overlap: A systematic quantitative literature review

Abstract

Regulatory failure caused by overlapping regulations is ubiquitous, with examples in all jurisdictions across a range of disciplines. Overlapping regulation can be problematic. It obscures policy objectives and hinders the development of effective and clear regulation. In addition, regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. Recognizing that regulatory overlap exists and is a problem provides the context to this program of research. Our research project was an exploration using a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) method to better understand the way regulatory failure, caused by overlapping regulations, has featured in academic literature. The SQLR method was chosen as it employs a systematic process to consolidate a sample of literature, and quantitative measures to draw connections between different academic sources. Ultimately, our research concluded that the literature does not provide clear prescriptive principles for reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap. This begs a question as to whether more research is needed in this area, or alternatively whether the complexities raised by regulatory overlap are not reducible to general principles.

Analisis Aspek Filsafat Sains pada Bidang Graph Mining dan Kemiripan Aturan Hukum

“…Penelitian yang dilakukan oleh Robb dan kawan-kawan diterbitkan pada tahun 2022 [12]. Pada masa itu, aturan hukum yang tumpang tindih (overlapping regulations) sering terjadi di berbagai negara.…”

“…Metode ini merupakan awal atau landasan untuk penelitian lebih lanjut mengenai permasalahan yang sama. Dengan demikian, penelitian [12] termasuk dalam penelitian masa anomaly karena sudah banyak terjadi anomali (yaitu overlapping regulatory) namun belum ada solusi umum yang dapat digunakan untuk setiap kasus anomali tersebut.…”

“…Penelitian [12] melakukan SQLR terhadap overlapping regulatory namun belum menemukan solusi umum. Dengan demikian, [12] berada di protective belt dan termasuk dalam progressive science karena memberikan dasar untuk penelitian lanjutan.…”

“…Penelitian [12] melakukan SQLR terhadap overlapping regulatory namun belum menemukan solusi umum. Dengan demikian, [12] berada di protective belt dan termasuk dalam progressive science karena memberikan dasar untuk penelitian lanjutan. Penelitian [13] menyajikan state-of-theart dan open issues di bidang LIR (Legal Information Retrieval), sehingga berada di protective belt dan progressive science.…”

“…Penelitian [12] memiliki ontologi, epistemologi, aksiologi, serta paradigma penelitian interpretivism. Hal ini karena penelitiannya melakukan systematic quantitative literature review terhadap penelitian-penelitian terdahulu di bidang overlapping regulatory.…”