Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries: The RIT Model

Abstract

Regulation is typically conceived as a two-party relationship between a rule-maker or regulator (R) and a rule-taker or target (T). We set out an agenda for the study of regulation (and rules more broadly) as a three-(or more) party relationship --with intermediaries (I) at the center of the analysis. Intermediaries play major and varied roles in regulation, from providing expertise and feedback to facilitating implementation, monitoring the behavior of regulatory targets and building communities of assurance and trust. After developing the basic RIT model, we discuss important extensions and variations. We then discuss the varieties of regulatory capture that appear where intermediaries are involved.

Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development

“…; Abbott et al . ,b), these studies have traditionally examined RI roles without considering the influence of broader field‐level processes. An exploration of how the former conditions the latter – and vice versa – would not only contribute to a process‐based understanding of intermediary governance but would also facilitate theory development regarding organizational responses accompanying field (re)structuration.…”

Jurisgenerative role of auditors in transnational labor governance

“…In this “Rulemaker‐Intermediary‐Target” (RIT) model, intermediaries are considered to be “any actor that acts directly or indirectly in conjunction with a regulator to affect the behavior of a target” (Abbott et al . , p. 19). An earlier definition more thoroughly describes intermediaries as any “regulatory actors with the capacity to affect, control, and monitor relations between rule‐makers and rule‐takers via their interpretations of standards and their role in the increasingly institutionalized processes of monitoring, verification, testing, auditing, and certification” (Levi‐Faur & Starobin , p. 21).…”

“…There are namely three risks of capture involved (Abbott et al . , p. 29). First, the target might capture the intermediary and thus influence rulemaking indirectly vis‐à‐vis the intermediary.…”

“…Intermediaries have capacities related to their operation, expertise, independence, and legitimacy that regulators rely on in order to overcome their own resource deficits and access problems (Abbott et al . , p. 20; van der Heijden , p. 212). By working with intermediaries, regulators are more capable of governing the behavior of their targets, both effectively and legitimately.…”

Standardization as Spaces of Diversity

“…Another group of scholars have highlighted actor and process diversity in new types of standards (e.g., process, performance), which devise operations at the local level rather than inscribe them in detail in the standard (Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000;Brunsson, Rasche, and Seidl 2012). We see movement towards greater autonomy for potential rule takers, intermediaries, users and certifiers, thus eliciting their consent and ensuring the wider applicability of the standard (Brunsson 2000;Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000;Botzem and Dobusch 2012;van den Ende et al 2012;Abbott, Levi-Faur, and Snidal 2017;Cashore 2002;Botzem and Quack 2006;Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson 2006;Quack 2010;Boström 2006;Hülsse and Kerwer 2007;Hülsse 2008;Black 2008;Tamm Hallstrom and Boström 2010;Ransom et al 2017).…”