Abstract
Initially, with a particular legal referent, this chapter summarises the guiding contemporary theories of interventionist and non-interventionist regulation. From this exercise emerges a discussion of the different disciplinary foundations and applications of these theories and their ramifications for an integrated and credible regulatory pluralism at a global level.1 The purpose of the theory review is not to mount a detailed critique or to propose a complex framework for the synthesis and development. Those are other more ambitious projects. For the purpose of a generalist text, theory is interrogated to inform the selection and integration of regulatory strategies proposed in this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, J. (2002b) ‘Critical Reflections on Regulation’, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27: 1–35, at p. 26.
Sunstein, C. (1996) ‘The Expressive Function of the Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144/5: 2021–2053.
Padula, G. & Dagnino, G. (2007) ‘Untangling the Rise of Coopetition: The Intrusion of Competition in a Cooperative Game Structure’, International Studies of Management and Organisation 37/2: 32–52.
There is no time here to explore the very interesting relationship between values and culture; a critical determinant in the selection of regulatory strategies. See Jing, R. & Graham, J. (2008) ‘Values Versus Regulations: How Culture Plays Its Role’, Journal of Business Ethics 80/4: 791–806.
See Lie, J. (1997) ‘Sociology of Markets’, Annual Review of Sociology 23: 341–360.
Sunstein, C. (1986) ‘Legal Interference with Private Preferences’, University of Chicago Law Review 53/4: 1129–1174.
Murphy, K., Tyler, T. & Curtis, A. (2009) ‘Nurturing Regulatory Compliance: Is Procedural Justice Effective When People Question the Legitimacy of the Law?’, Regulation & Governance 3/1: 1–26.
For a discussion of hard and soft laws and the context of the legitimacy and effectiveness of norms emanating from different forms of law, see Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. & Vihma, A. (2009) ‘Comparing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Global Hard and Soft Law: An Analytical Framework’, Regulation & Governance 3/4: 400–420.
Cherney, A. (1997) ‘Trust as Regulatory Strategy: A Theoretical Review’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 9/1: 71–84, at p. 71.
Black, J. (1996) ‘Constitutionalising Self-regulation’, The Modern Law Review 59/1: 24–55, at p. 30.
Baldwin, R & Black, J. (2008) ‘Really Responsive Regulation’, Modern Law Review 71/1: 59–94.
See Uslaner, E. (1991) ‘Comity in Context: Confrontation in Historical Perspective’, British Journal of Political Science 21/1: 45–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Mark Findlay
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Findlay, M. (2013). Comparative Theories of Regulation — North vs South Worlds. In: Contemporary Challenges in Regulating Global Crises. International Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137009111_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137009111_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43595-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00911-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)