Standardization and Compliance Costs: Relevant Developments at EU Level

  • Frank A. G. den Butter
  • John Hudson
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 20)


This article discusses government regulation and the consequent compliance costs for the private sector from the perspective of transaction cost economics. In many cases, government regulation is shaped as legally binding standards. In order to comply with these standards, private sector firms meet various types of transaction costs, such as the bonding costs that the principal/agent relationship of government regulation brings about. On the other hand, good standards may reduce transaction costs. Therefore, optimal design of government regulation requires the design of standards with the lowest possible transaction costs. Due to network externalities and economics of scale, and in order to guarantee a level playing field, good coordination and unifying standards within the EU can be beneficial. This article provides examples of such standards.


Transaction Cost Government Regulation Asymmetric Information Market Failure Administrative Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akerlof, G.A., 1970, The market for “lemons”: quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blind, K., 2004, The Economics of Standards, Edward Elgar Publishing, Williston.Google Scholar
  3. Boog, J.J. and A.F.M. Nijsen, 2007, Pilotonderzoek overige nalevingskosten van bestaande wetgeving (Pilot research on other compliance costs of existing legislation) EIM, Zoetermeer, 30 March 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Brunsson, N. and B. Jacobsson, 2000, A World of Standards, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Butter, F.A.G. den and R.H.J. Mosch, 2003, Trade, trust and transaction costs, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2003-082/3.Google Scholar
  6. Butter, F.A.G. den and P. Corveleijn, 2007, Standaardisering van het Europese effectenverkeer (Standards for the European financial assets trade), Economisch Statistische Berichten, 92, 708–711.Google Scholar
  7. Butter, F.A.G. den, S.P.T. Groot, and F. Lazrak, 2007a, Standaards als bron van welvaart (Standards as sources of prosperity), Kwartaalschrift Economie, 4, nr. 2139–165.Google Scholar
  8. Butter, F.A.G. den, S.P.T. Groot, and F. Lazrak, 2007b, The transaction costs perspective on standards as a source of trade and productivity growth, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2007-090-3.Google Scholar
  9. COM 689, 2006, Measuring Administrative Costs and Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union, EU Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. Giovannini, The Group, 2001. Cross-Border Clearing and Settlement Arrangements in the European Union. Brussel.
  11. Goerke, L and M.J. Holler, 1998, Strategic standardization in Europe: A public choice perspective, European Journal of Law and Economics, 6, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hudson, C. and J. Hudson (2008) Guaranteeing Quality in the EU: Who Gains Most?, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 33, 283–298.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, P. and J. Hudson, 1996, Standardization and the costs of assessing quality, European Journal of Political Economy, 12, 355–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kox, H.L.M., 2005, Intra-EU differences in regulation-caused administrative burden for companies, CPB Memorandum 136, CPB, The Hague.Google Scholar
  15. London Stock Exchange, 2002, Clearing and Settlement in Europe. Response to the first report of the Giovannini Group.Google Scholar
  16. Mattli, W., 2001, The politics and economics of international institutional standards setting: an introduction, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mosch, R.H.J., 2004, The Economic Effects of Trust; Theory and Empirical Evidence, Tinbergen Institute Research Series 340, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. North, D.C., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (MA).Google Scholar
  19. North, D.C., 1994, Economic performance through time, American Economic Review, 84, 359–368.Google Scholar
  20. Savage, M., 2006, Implementation of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in EU 25, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. Ugland, T. and F. Veggeland, 2006, Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williamson, O.E., 1998, Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed, De Economist, 146, 23–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. World Trade Organization, 2005, World Trade Report 2005, Washington.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University AmsterdamAmsterdam

Personalised recommendations