Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 1433–1454 | Cite as

Regulation, public interest, and private interest: an empirical investigation of firms in Japan

  • Fumitoshi MizutaniEmail author
  • Eri Nakamura
Article
  • 200 Downloads

Abstract

By using empirical methodology, this paper investigates to what extent the public interest and the private interest theories, respectively, explain the actual regulatory process. Our estimation findings are as follows: First, on average (whole industry basis), the explanation power of the public interest theory is about 46– 78%, while that of the private interest theory is about 22–54%. Second, the explanatory power of the public interest theory is higher in non-public utility industries, while that of the private interest theory is higher in public utility industries. This suggests that regulations on non-public utility industry are constructed largely with social welfare in mind, as assumed in conventional neoclassical welfare economics, but that those in the public utility industry tend to be captured largely by private groups, as assumed in private interest theory.

Keywords

Determinants of regulation Corporate ownership Public interest theory Private interest theory 

JEL Classification

L44 L51 L52 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first version of this paper was presented at the Workshop on Corporate Governance in Network Industries on October 29, 2015, at the Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), WU Campus, Vienna, Austria. We would like to thank the participants at the workshop for valuable comments and questions, especially Prof. Klaus Gugler (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Prof. Anne d’Arcy (Vienna University of Economics and Business), and Prof. Laura Rondi (Politecnico di Torino). We also would like to thank two anonymous referees for comments and questions. This research was funded partly by the JSPS KAKENHI, Grant No. 17K03685.

References

  1. Benmelech E, Moskowitz TJ (2010) The political economy of financial regulation: evidence from U.S. state usury laws in the 19th century. J Finance 65(3):1029–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg SV, Jeong J (1991) An evaluation of incentive regulation for electric utilities. J Regul Econ 3:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dnes AW, Kodwani DG, Seaton JS, Wood D (1998) The regulation of the United Kingdom electricity industry: an event study of price-capping measure. J Regul Econ 13:207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dnes AW, Seaton JS (1999) The regulation of electricity: results from an event study. Appl Econ 31:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feijen E, Perotti E (2006) Deliberate financial fragility. Working paper. University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Ito K, Nakanishi Y, Matsuura T, Murakami Y (2006) Futaihyou ni tsuite. In: Research institute of economy, trade and industry, IAA. Available via http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/database/d05_data/01-4.pdf, Accessed 17 Jan 2017, (in Japanese)
  7. Kroszner RS, Strahan PE (1999) What drives deregulation? Economics and politics of the relaxation of bank branching restrictions. Q J Econ 114(4):1437–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mizutani F, Nakamura E (2014) Managerial incentive, organizational slack, and performance: empirical analysis of Japanese firms’ behavior. J Manag Gov 18(1):245–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakamura E (2010) The effect of public involvement of firm inefficiency: evidence using Japanese private firms. Rev Manag Sci 4:217–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peltzman S (1976) Toward a more general theory of regulation. J Law Econ 19(2):211–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pigou AC (1920) The economics of welfare. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Posner RA (1974) Theories of economic regulation. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 5(2):335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Primeaux WJ Jr, Filer JE, Herren RS, Hollas DR (1984) Determinants of regulatory policies toward competition in the electric utility industry. Pub Choice 43(2):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ros AJ (1999) Does ownership or competition matter? The effects of telecommunications reform on network expansion and efficiency. J Regul Econ 15:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smyth R, Soderberg M (2010) Public interest versus regulatory capture in the Swedish electricity market. J Regul Econ 38:292–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stigler GJ (1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 2(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vickers J, Yarrow G (1988) Privatization: An economic analysis. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Viscusi WK, Harrington JE, Vernon JM (2005) Economics of regulation and antitrust, 4th edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Business AdministrationKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations