I would recommend giving your progressive friends gift subscriptions to Regulation. The articles in the current issue, as usual, show the gap between intention and outcome.
For me, the issue was too depressing to digest in one sitting. It is hard to single out any one article, but perhaps Peter Lemieux on the U.S. wanting to apply tariffs to Chinese solar panels is the one that describes a government action that even a progressive should easily find reasons to condemn.
Do you believe in respect for international law? The World Trade Organization ruled against the U.S. Do you believe in using “green” energy to fight global warming? Raising the price of solar panels will reduce the use of solar power. etc.
With your depressing reading experience in mind:
Indubitably, monitoring regulation and creating well-informed awareness of its problems and abuses is of the essence. However, aren’t there vast areas of regulation that work well? For instance, the land registry office is working much to my contentment. Do we have finer criteria of assessment than the government/non-government paradigm? For the habitual decrier of government regulation, is there not the danger of committing a nirvana fallacy?
Can we cite examples of excellence in government regulation – to elevate the mood?
Are there not uplifting developments in regulation? How about: “Responsive Regulation. Transcending the Deregulation Debate.” by Ayres and Braithwaite?
“””For the habitual decrier of government regulation, is there not the danger of committing a nirvana fallacy?”””
I do worry sometimes that I’ll fall into this trap. My ideal self would use examples of bad regulation to say “the null hypothesis should be that regulating X is difficult and will not raise welfare. For any given regulatory scheme, the *burden of proof* is on the proposer to explain why this scheme is likely enough to work, and useful enough if it does, that we should try it, keeping in mind that if it doesn’t work, we’re probably stuck with it. And if we don’t have the ability to have that discussion, we should be heavily biased against regulation”
Mr. Meyer,
Your view strikes me as eminently sensible. I concur, yet not without realising that organising that crictically-constructive dialogue in itself poses a great number of problems, not all of which we may expect to solve satisfactorily. I suspect, regulating will always be a matter full of fuzzy ends and unresolved issues. Good regulation, I suppose, is a process of ongoing experimentation.
Like you, I would emphasise the need to monitor carefully the potential for danger inherent in regulatory efforts, and in particular administrative creep and the wide spectrum of potential abuse that derives from power-related advantages of governmental authorities.
For me, as someone who consciously values freedom, it is not always easy to keep a mental and intellectual balance between (a) watchfulness in the face of “statism,” and (b) an appreciation for, indeed, a willingness to contribute to services sensibly rendered by government (agencies). Alternately, I tend to err on this or on that side.
Mr. Thomas – the land registry office is not an example of regulation, but of a government service. At lease in the United States, its use is in most cases not mandatory, but simply advisable. Further, one can easily imagine it being privatized, as Internet domain registration has been.
Please do provide an example of a set of regulations that are working well.
You have guessed it: I have no idea how land registry works in the US, I am writing from Germany. Land registry is a governmental function here, and even if it weren’t, it would remain a case of governmental regulation, as the practice is heavily structured by statutes etc. emanating from governmental bodies.
It is good exercise for those conscious of the value of liberty, to try to become more aware of how well government (or a fruitful interaction between civil society and government) works in countless ways.
I think, traffic is by and large rather well regulated in my country.
Utilities, too, though less and less so, as the pertinent rules and regulations have suffered from a strong impact by fanatical “ecologists,” in recent years.
Mind you, this is not the place to discuss in extensive measure remarkable reversals and bureaucratic resistance to over-politicization and takeover of the law by partisan zealots. In a word: I do perceive government agencies operating with a distinct determination to serve a pluralistic democracy, rather than permanently dominant special interest groups.
However, this requires participation in the political process, it is not helped by summary condemnation of government activities.
Great article on protectionism. Will be required reading for my students from now on. Thanks!