Ex-ante Regulation, Ex-post Regulation, and Collusion

  • Moriki HosoeEmail author


So far the prevalent administrative methods in Japan have been called a preventivism or ex-ante regulation system. This is an administrative method under which the regulatory authority regulates ex-ante the related business world in charge so as not to do unfair behaviours or do “over-competition”. It is contrary to ex-post regulation with rigorous penalty system for rule-breakers and the clearness of regulation rule. In this paper we investigate the comparative analysis of ex-ante regulation policy and ex-post one.


  1. Baron, D. 1984. Regulatory strategies under asymmetric information. In Bayesian models in economic theory, ed. M. Boyer, and R. Kihlstrom. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, D.P., and D. Besanko. 1984. Regulation, asymmetric information, and auditing. The Rand Journal of Economics 15: 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G.S. 1968. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.Google Scholar
  4. Jost, J.P. 1997. Regulatory enforcement in the presence of a court system. International Review of Law and Economics 17: 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaplow, L., and S. Shavell. 1994. Optimal law enforcement with self-reporting of behavior. Journal of Political Economy 102 (3): 583–606.Google Scholar
  6. Kofman, F., and J. Lawarree. 1993. Collusion in hierarchical agency. Econometrica 61: 629–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kolstad, E. 1990. Liability versus regulation. The American Economic Review 80.Google Scholar
  8. Laffont, J.J., and J. Tirole. 1991. The politics of government decision-making. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (4): 1089–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malik, A. 1990. Self-reporting and the design of policies for regulating stochastic pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mookherjee, D., and I.P.L. Png. 1992. Monitoring vis-a-vis investigation in enforcement of law. The American Economic Review 82 (3): 556–565.Google Scholar
  11. Polinsky, A.M., and S. Shavell. 1979. The optimal trade-off between the probability and magnitude of fines. The American Economic Review 69: 880–891.Google Scholar
  12. Spulber, D. 1988. Optimal environmental regulation under asymmetric information. Journal of Public Economics 35: 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strausz, R. 1997a. Delegation of monitoring in principal-agent relationship. The Review of Economic Studies 64: 337–357.Google Scholar
  14. Strausz, R. 1997b. Collusion and renegotiation in a principal-supervisor-agent relationship. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99: 497–518.Google Scholar
  15. Tirole, J. 1992. Collusion and the theory of organizations. In Advances in economic theory, ed. J.J. Laffont. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emeritus ProfessorKyushu UniversityHigashi-ku, FukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations