Advertisement

Assessing Policy II: Governance-Choice Method

  • Michael Latzer
  • Florian Saurwein
  • Natascha Just
Chapter

Abstract

The modes and intensity of market interventions are central topics in research and in policy debates on regulation and governance worldwide. Lately, initiatives on good governance, better regulation and evidence-based policy-making have given rise to major questions about the choice between available governance mechanisms. Research and policy typically suggest due consideration of alternative modes of governance like self- and co-regulation, but rarely specify the criteria against which the suitability of different options should be scrutinized and compared. This chapter introduces a governance-choice method that has been developed to support researchers and policy-makers who are confronted with the task of defining the appropriate role of the state in governance arrangements, the right mix of public and private contributions to governance challenges. This institutional approach provides a set of interlinked organizational factors and enabling contextual criteria that make it possible to predict the performance of a planned alternative governance arrangement and to assess the performance of an established one. The chapter presents an outline of the governance-choice method and illustrates its application with two examples: content rating in the audiovisual sector and the prevention of spam on the Internet.

References

  1. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartle, I., & Vass, P. (2007). Self-regulation within the regulatory state. Public Administration, 85(4), 885–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2010). Really responsive risk-based regulation. Law & Policy, 32(2), 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, A. J. (1999). Self-regulation and the media. Federal Communications Law Journal, 51(3), 711–771.Google Scholar
  5. Freist, R., & Hosbach, W. (2017). Spam-Filter und Tipps gegen unerwünschte E-Mails. PC Magazin. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from http://www.pc-magazin.de/ratgeber/spam-filter-tipps-tools-regeln-3197305.html.
  6. Garvin, D. A. (1983). Can industry self regulation work? California Management Review, 25(9), 48–63.Google Scholar
  7. Gudkova, D., Vergelis, M., Demidova, N., & Shcherbakova, T. (2017). Spam im Jahr 2016. Kapersky Security Bulletin. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from https://de.securelist.com/kaspersky-security-bulletin-spam-and-phishing-in-2016/72383/.
  8. Gunningham, N., & Rees, J. (1997). Industry self-regulation: An institutional perspective. Law & Policy, 19(4), 363–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta, A. K., & Lad, L. J. (1983). Industry self-regulation: An economic, organizational, and political analysis. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 416–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Héritier, A., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2008). The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance: Sectoral governance and democratic government. Journal of Public Policy, 28(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutter, B. M. (2005). The attractions of risk-based regulation: Accounting for the emergence of risk ideas in regulation (Discussion Paper No. 33). ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation.Google Scholar
  12. Just, N., Latzer, M., & Saurwein, F. (2007). Communications governance: Entscheidungshilfe für die Wahl des Regulierungsarrangements am Beispiel Spam. In P. Donges (Ed.), Von der Medienpolitik zur Media Governance? (pp. 103–126). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Latzer, M. (2007). Regulatory choice in communications governance. Communications, the European Journal of Communication Research, 32(3), 399–405.Google Scholar
  14. Latzer, M. (2009). Convergence revisited: Toward a modified pattern of communications governance. Convergence—The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15(4), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latzer, M. (2013). Media convergence. In R. Towse & C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook of the digital creative economy (pp. 123–133). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Latzer, M., Hollnbuchner, K., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2016). The economics of algorithmic selection on the Internet. In J. Bauer & M. Latzer (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of the Internet (pp. 395–425). Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Latzer, M., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2013). Self- and co-regulation: Evidence, legitimacy and governance choice. In M. E. Price, S. G. Verhulst, & L. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge handbook of media law (pp. 373–397). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F., & Slominski, P. (2002). Selbst- und Ko-Regulierung im Mediamatiksektor. Alternative Regulierungsformen zwischen Staat und Markt. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F., & Slominski, P. (2003). Regulation remixed—Institutional change through self- and co-regulation in the mediamatics sector. Communications and Strategies, 50(2), 127–157.Google Scholar
  20. Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F., & Slominski, P. (2006). Institutional variety in communications regulation: Classification scheme and empirical evidence from Austria. Telecommunications Policy, 30(3–4), 152–170.Google Scholar
  21. Latzer, M., Price, M. E., Saurwein, F., & Verhulst, S. G. (2007). Comparative analysis of international co- and self-regulation in communications markets. Research report commissioned by Ofcom. Vienna: ITA.Google Scholar
  22. Latzer, M., & Saurwein F. (2008). Vertrauen in die Industrie – Vertrauen in die Nutzer. In W. Schulz & T. Held (Eds.), Mehr Vertrauen in Inhalte. Das Potenzial von Ko- und Selbstregulierung in digitalen Medien (pp. 93–142). Berlin: Vistas.Google Scholar
  23. Latzer, M., Saurwein, F., Dörr, K., Just, N., & Wallace, J. (2015). Evaluation der Selbstregulierungsmassnahmen zum Jugendmedienschutz der Branchen Film, Computerspiele, Telekommunikation und Internet. Forschungsbericht im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Sozialversicherungen (BSV). Zürich: IPMZ.Google Scholar
  24. Levi-Faur, D. (2010). Regulation and regulatory governance (Jerusalem Papers on Regulation & Governance No. 1). Retrieved August 31, 2017, from http://regulation.huji.ac.il/papers/jp1.pdf.
  25. Majone, G. (Ed.). (1996). Regulating Europe. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Newman, A. L., & Bach, D. (2004). Self-regulatory trajectories in the shadow of public power: Resolving digital dilemmas in Europe and the United States. Governance, 17(3), 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD. (2010). Risk and regulatory policy: Improving the governance of risk. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance, 18(4), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saurwein, F. (2011). Regulatory choice for alternative modes of regulation: How context matters. Law & Policy, 33(3), 334–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saurwein, F., Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2015). Governance of algorithms: Options and limitations. Info, 17(6), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saurwein, F., & Latzer, M. (2010). Regulatory choice in communications: The case of content-rating schemes in the audiovisual industry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulz, W., & Held, T. (2002). Regulierte Selbstregulierung als Form modernen Regierens (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts, Nr. 10). Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut.Google Scholar
  35. Sinclair, D. (1997). Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy, 19(4), 529–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Latzer, M. (2007). Regulatory choice in communications governance. Communications, the European Journal of Communication Research, 32(3), 399–405.Google Scholar
  2. Latzer, M., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2013). Self- and co-regulation: Evidence, legitimacy and governance choice. In M. E. Price, S. G. Verhulst, & L. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge handbook of media law (pp. 373–397). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F., & Slominski, P. (2006). Institutional variety in communications regulation: Classification scheme and empirical evidence from Austria. Telecommunications Policy, 30(3–4), 152–170.Google Scholar
  4. Saurwein, F., Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2015). Governance of algorithms: Options and limitations. Info, 17(6), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Saurwein, F., & Latzer, M. (2010). Regulatory choice in communications: The case of content-rating schemes in the audiovisual industry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Latzer
    • 1
  • Florian Saurwein
    • 2
  • Natascha Just
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication and Media Research (IKMZ)University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Studies (CMC)Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of KlagenfurtViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations