Selecting Policy Instruments for Better Environmental Regulation: a Critique and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

There is a lack of evidence on regulatory effectiveness available to support policy makers with the selection of appropriate instruments to deliver better environmental regulation. We identify the types of evidence required to enable regulatory reform, characterize evidence gaps, and explore how these may be filled through future research. A typology of regulatory instruments is presented, and evidence of what has worked when and why is examined, drawing on international experience and recent cases from the United Kingdom (UK). Evidence of the capabilities of good environmental regulators for regulatory effectiveness is lacking, and it is proposed that ethnographic research that captures the nuances of regulatory practice will prove necessary to address this. This paper is of value to policy makers and regulators around the world considering the selection and deployment of the full range of environmental regulatory instruments to respond to environmental risks and in support of economic growth. It can inform the selection of suitable approaches and the design of institutions capable of delivering them. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Greening the Street-Level Procurer: Challenges in the Strongly Decentralized Swedish System

“…Such contextual analyses are highly recommended by Taylor et al (2012), who argue that official environmental policies are somewhat over-researched, while local practices are poorly covered.…”

Regulators as agents: Modelling personality and power as evidence is brokered to support decisions on environmental risk

“…This raises issues about the tone of regulatory exchange, the quality of evidence that supports environmental risk decisions and the skill sets required of regulatory staff. For the regulated, the same applies -those seeking earned recognition by going beyond compliance (Taylor et al, 2012; Classically, agent-based models focus on how complex dynamics and outcomes rely on the network of interactions between agents. They have been built using techniques such as discrete event simulation and object orientated programming (Brailsford and Schnidt, 2003) that reproduce the critical features of complex systems using component level rules.…”

“…In regulatory settings, the recipients of evidence may also hold and exercise power over the provider with respect to its sufficiency. As a contribution to the smarter regulation debate (Better Regulation Commission, 2006;Gouldson et al, 2009;Hutter, 2005;Taylor et al, 2012; we are interested in how regulatory confidence in risk-informed decisions is instilled as evidence is brokered between parties. We suggest that agent-based tools may help researchers explore relationships between evidence, personality and power .…”

A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation

“…Furthermore, the method allows for the design of policy instrument mixes, a topic that has not yet been elaborated upon in much detail in policy studies. Various authors have claimed that in environmental policy, the employment of a mix of policy instruments is often preferable for reaching multiple policy objectives and target groups because policy instruments may complement each other and compensate each other's weaknesses (see Taylor et al 2012). Conceptualizations and empirical evidence, however, are limited (Glasbergen 1992, Oikonomou and Jepma 2008, Weber et al 2014).…”

“…Our list of instruments is not exhaustive and is necessarily incomplete (Table 1). We only include those instruments that are typically used to address environmental problems (see Glasbergen 1992, Vedung 1998, Hellegers and Van Ierland 2003, Wurzel et al 2003, Taylor et al 2012, Lockie 2013 Criteria for policy instrument selection A variety of performance criteria might apply for climate adaptation. We use a multi-disciplinary set of most commonly applied assessment criteria for policy analysis as derived from economics, policy, and legal studies: effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy, accountability, legal certainty, and fairness (e.g., Nelissen 2002, Crabbé andLeroy 2008).…”