PhD Thesis: An evidence base and critique for environmental regulatory reform (2014)
Chris Taylor
10.17862/cranfield.rd.6834542.v1
https://cord.cranfield.ac.uk/articles/thesis/PhD_Thesis_An_evidence_base_and_critique_for_environmental_regulatory_reform_2014_/6834542
<p>Societies have established various forms of governance to protect the
natural environment from the adverse effects of human activity. While direct "command and control"
regulation has achieved significant improvements in environmental protection,
concerns for its efficiency have led governments to seek alternative approaches
to achieve environmental policy objectives. Commentators describe a shift from
"government" to "governance" as policy makers and
regulators seek to harness wider social forces beyond government, while
risk-based regulation is pursued to target constrained regulatory resources for
maximum effect. However, robust evidence
for the effectiveness of different forms of regulation is lacking.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This thesis addresses this gap, providing an evidence base for
instrument selection and a data-informed critique of regulatory reform
practice. Research followed a case study strategy, gathering qualitative data
through 58 in-depth semi-structured interviews, analysed using the NVIVOTM
Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis System (CAQDAS), with senior policy
makers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, England
(Defra) and senior executives in businesses and trade associations in 5 UK
sectors.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(1) A new typology of regulatory instruments has
been compiled, validated with sector experts, refined for policy end-users, and
published as part of Defra's guidance on instrument selection.</p>
<p>(2) The critical case of instrument selection in
practice at Defra has been examined for the first time, revealing factors
affecting choice, the use of co-regulation to develop evidence and the
importance of retaining policy maker skills for new forms of regulation.</p>
<p>(3) A multiple-case study of senior business representatives
found five strongly preferred voluntary regulation, seven expressed significant
doubts about its effectiveness, and 19 expressed no general preference. While
voluntary approaches were valued for flexibility and lower burdens, direct
regulation offered stability and a level playing field. They sought <i>inter
alia </i>coherent, evidence based regulatory frameworks, delivered through
positive regulatory relationships.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This research progresses the better and smarter
regulation debate on the use of alternatives to direct regulation and has
already been used to inform policy making in practice.</p>
2018-07-19 13:15:01
risk
regulation
design
instrument
selection
Environment and Resource Economics