Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3 - Regulation (Continued x 2)

3 - Regulation (Continued x 2)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by manavmelwani

More info:

Published by: manavmelwani on May 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/03/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1
PUBLIC LAW II 2010/11Part I: Contemporary techniques of governanceA. Regulation and Governance (continued x 2)4. Regulatory Agencies  process and accountability
The Ofdog model 
To
recap, we n
ot
ed in
th
e previ
ous
lec
tu
re
ho
w C
o
n
s
erva
t
ive priva
t
i
s
a
t
i
o
n p
o
licie
s
fedreg
u
la
t
i
o
n in
th
e g
u
i
s
e
o
f 
th
e Ofd
o
g m
o
del:
y
 
A
 
single, independent 
reg
u
la
to
ry agency,
h
eaded by a Direc
to
r-General, f 
o
r eac
h
 ind
ust
ry
o
 
S
o
 
u
l
t
ima
t
ely,
th
e b
u
lk
o
th
e reg
u
la
to
ry p
o
wer ve
st
ed in
th
e DG
y
 
W
i
th
in a general reg
u
la
to
ry framew
o
rk pr
o
vided by
th
e priva
t
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
st
a
tut
e,prac
t
ical
o
pera
t
i
o
n
s
predica
t
ed
o
n a
s
y
st
em
o
licensing
 
o
 
E.
g
.
 
to
be a wa
t
er
su
pplied, y
ou
 
h
ad
to
 
h
ave a licen
s
e fr
o
m
th
e DG w
h
ic
h
 
o
c
ou
r
s
e w
ou
ld
h
ave
T
s
and C
s
w
h
ic
h
c
ou
ld
h
ave reg
u
la
to
ry req
u
iremen
ts
 wri
tt
en in
to
 
th
em
.
 
y
 
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
th
e d
o
minan
t
firm via a
 price-cap formula
, in
t
ended
to
incen
t
ivi
s
e grea
t
erefficiency [RPI-X]
y
 
Th
e DG
s
a
s
par
t
 
o
f a reg
u
la
to
ry
network 
,
th
e c
o
mpe
t
i
t
i
o
n a
utho
ri
t
ie
s
incl
u
ded
y
 
L
a
tt
erly, emp
h
a
s
i
s
 
o
n
q
uality 
reg
u
la
t
i
o
n a
s
par
t
 
o
th
e ec
o
n
o
mic reg
u
la
t
i
o
n
o
 
N
eeded a
s
 
th
e price-cap wa
s
 
sho
wn
to
 
h
ave a p
ot
en
t
ially adver
s
e effec
t
.
 
Th
i
s
 
so
r
t
 
o
f in
st
i
tut
i
o
nal arc
h
i
t
ec
tu
re
o
f reg
u
la
t
i
o
n came
to
be
h
eavily cri
t
ici
s
ed e
s
pecially byp
u
blic lawyer
s
.
 
Th
e c
h
ief c
o
ncern wa
s
 
th
i
s
idea
o
f giving
th
e
s
e p
o
wer
s
 
to
an individ
u
al (
th
eDG) a
s
 
th
e
s
e legal p
o
wer
s
were very
s
ignifican
t
indeed
.
 -
 
E.
g
.
 
th
e DG f 
t
elec
o
mm
u
nica
t
i
o
n
s
w
ou
ld decide w
h
ic
h
c
o
mpanie
s
c
ou
ld en
t
er
th
emarke
t
place,
th
e price-cap
o
n
th
e d
o
minan
t
firm,
ho
w m
u
c
h
new en
t
ran
ts
w
ou
ldpay
to
en
t
er e
t
c
S
ignifican
t
deci
s
i
o
n
s
affec
t
ing b
oth
c
o
n
su
mer
s
and c
o
mmercialen
t
erpri
s
e
s
.
 
Th
e arg
u
men
t
wa
s
 
th
a
t
 
th
ey were given a
hu
ge am
ou
n
t
 
o
f di
s
cre
t
i
o
n and
th
ere were manylegi
t
imacy i
ssu
e
s
 
st
emming fr
o
m giving
su
c
h
a large am
ou
n
t
 
o
f p
o
wer
to
an individ
u
al
.
I
t
 all
o
w
s
o
r very per
so
nali
s
ed f 
o
rm
s
 
o
f reg
u
la
t
i
o
n and al
so
, a real lack
o
t
ran
s
parency in m
u
c
h
 
o
th
e deci
s
i
o
n making
.
 
Th
e
st
a
tuto
ry framew
o
rk
s
e
t
 
u
p
u
nder
th
e c
o
n
s
erva
t
ive
s
wa
s
de
t
erminably
o
pen-ended
o
rvag
u
e
.
I
t
i
s
q
u
i
t
e clear
th
a
t
 
th
e c
o
n
s
erva
t
ive
s
,
thou
g
h
m
o
ving
to
an
A
merican m
o
del
o
priva
t
e
o
wner
sh
ip wi
th
reg
u
la
t
i
o
n, were keen
to
av
o
id
th
e elemen
ts
 
o
h
eavy de
t
ailedframew
o
rk w
h
ic
h
came wi
th
m
u
c
h
li
t
iga
t
i
o
n
s
aid
to
 
h
ave c
h
arac
t
eri
s
ed
th
e
A
merican
s
y
st
em
.
 
S
ources of legitimacy for agency action
 
2
 C
o
ncern
s
ab
out
a
lack of procedural safeguards
and
o
insufficient accountability 
in
th
e ca
s
e
o
th
e Ofd
o
g
s
s
p
u
rred a
s
earc
h
o
r agency legi
t
imacy - a
s
expre
ss
ed in
t
erm
s
 
o
th
e c
o
reval
u
e
s
w
h
ic
h
agencie
s
need
to
 
s
a
t
i
s
fy in
o
rder
to
meri
t
and receive p
u
blic appr
o
val
.
Indeed,
th
i
s
became a lei
t
m
ot
if 
o
f UK p
u
blic law in
th
e 1990
s
.
 
 An important link was being made withregulatory effectiveness
: many reg
u
la
to
r
s
 
o
pera
t
e wi
thout
 
su
fficien
t
legi
t
imacy
to
d
o
 
th
eir j
o
b wi
th
u
ll c
o
nfidence, weakening
th
e reg
u
la
to
ry envir
o
nmen
t
and pr
o
mp
t
ing agencie
s
 
to
 
o
pera
t
e defen
s
ively
.
1
 
 A standard template was produced for the purposes of agency design and evaluation:
y
 
L
egi
s
la
t
ive manda
t
e
y
 
E
xper
t
i
s
e
y
 
E
fficiency and effec
t
ivene
ss
 
y
 
D
u
e pr
o
ce
ss
 
y
 
A
cc
ou
n
t
abili
t
y
L
egi
s
la
t
ive manda
t
e
S
o
agencie
s
were req
u
ired
to
 
h
ave a clear and
u
nder
st
andable legi
s
la
t
ive manda
t
e
.
 
Th
e idea
h
ere
o
f c
ou
r
s
e i
s
 
th
a
t
an agency need
s
a clear p
u
rp
os
e w
h
ic
h
 
shou
ld be
s
e
t
 
out
in
st
a
tut
eand
th
a
t
i
t
 
shou
ld be given clear p
o
wer
s
 
to
perf 
o
rm
th
a
t
manda
t
e
.
 Opera
t
i
o
n
o
th
i
s
cri
t
eria
sh
if 
t
ed wi
th
 
NL;
 
th
e C
s
cen
t
red
o
n price c
o
n
t
r
o
l and
th
i
s
wa
s
 
s
een
to
be
too
narr
o
w
.
Under
NL
,
th
e
s
e manda
t
e
s
increa
s
ed f 
o
r vir
tu
ally all agencie
s
 
to
 
t
ake in
to
 acc
ou
n
t
 
so
cial and envir
o
nmen
t
al aim
s
.
Of c
ou
r
s
e, wi
th
m
o
re aim
s
, c
o
me m
o
re c
o
mpe
t
ingin
t
ere
sts
and
thus
, m
o
re agency di
s
cre
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
i
s
b
u
il
t
in
to
 
th
e
s
y
st
em
.
 
E
xper
t
i
s
eG
o
e
s
back
to
 
th
e arg
u
men
t
 
th
a
t
we
h
ave agencie
s
beca
us
e
th
eyre mean
t
 
to
 
h
ave exper
t
i
s
ein
th
e relevan
t
field
.
 
S
o
i
t
 
h
a
s
 
to
be en
su
red
th
a
t
 
th
e exper
t
i
s
e
o
th
e agency d
o
e
s
indeedc
o
ver
th
e area
th
eyre reg
u
la
t
ing
.
 
E
fficiency and effec
t
ivene
ss
 
E
fficiency
o
th
e agency i
ts
elf b
ut
al
so
,
o
th
e reg
u
la
t
ed
s
ec
to
r w
h
ic
h
 
th
e agencyi
s
 reg
u
la
t
ing
.
 
N
ot
e
th
a
t
b
oth
 
o
th
e
s
e can be very diffic
u
l
t
 
to
a
ss
e
ss
:
E.
g
.
wi
th
race di
s
crimina
t
i
o
n, i
t
s
 
s
elf-eviden
t
 
th
a
t
race di
s
crimina
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
n
ot
beeneradica
t
ed
.
D
o
e
s
 
th
a
t
mean
th
a
t
a reg
u
la
to
r
su
c
h
a
s
 
th
e c
o
mmi
ss
i
o
n f 
o
r racial eq
u
ali
t
y wa
s
 ineffec
t
ive?
Th
e
o
nly
su
i
t
able c
o
mpara
to
r w
ou
ld be a parallel w
o
rld w
h
ere
th
e c
o
mmi
ss
i
o
n
o
r racial eq
u
ali
t
y wa
s
n
ot
ar
ou
nd in
th
e fir
st
place
.
 
1
Constitutional Reform Centre, µRegulatory Agencies in the United Kingdom¶ (1991) 44
 Parl. Affairs
 504, 507.
 
3
 D
u
e pr
o
ce
ss
 
Th
i
s
refer
s
 
to
 
th
e pr
o
ced
u
re
s
a reg
u
la
to
ry agency
u
nder
t
ake
s
bef 
o
re i
t
make
s
deci
s
i
o
n
s
.
 
W
ew
ou
ld expec
t
 
th
a
t
bef 
o
re a reg
u
la
to
ry agency imp
os
e
s
a
s
e
t
 
o
f req
u
iremen
ts
 
o
n
th
a
t
 en
t
erpri
s
e,
th
a
t
 
th
e en
t
erpri
s
e
h
a
s
a rig
ht
 
to
be
h
eard e
t
c
...
 
W
ed expec
t
al
so
 
th
ered be
o
pp
o
r
tu
ni
t
ie
s
o
r c
o
n
su
l
t
a
t
i
o
n am
o
ng wider in
t
ere
st
gr
ou
p
s
.
 
A
maj
o
r cri
t
ici
s
m
s
 
o
th
e Ofd
o
g
s
i
s
 
th
a
t
w
h
ile
th
ey w
ou
ld c
o
n
su
l
t
wi
th
 
th
e reg
u
la
t
eden
t
erpri
s
e,
th
ere were n
o
clear legal req
u
iremen
ts
a
s
king
th
em
to
 
o
pen
th
e deci
s
i
o
n-makingpr
o
ce
ss
m
o
re generally
to
 
oth
er
s
ec
to
r
s
.
 
A
cc
ou
n
t
abili
t
y
W
h
a
t
ma
tt
er
s
i
s
 
th
e c
o
llec
t
ive j
ust
ifica
to
ry p
o
wer
o
th
e arg
u
men
ts
 
th
a
t
can bemade
u
nder
th
e five
h
eading
s
.
 
S
t
r
o
ng claim
s
acr
oss
 
th
e b
o
ard p
o
in
t
 
to
reg
u
la
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
de
s
erve
s
 
su
pp
o
r
t
, generally weak claim
s
indica
t
e a l
o
w capaci
t
y
to
j
ust
ify I
t
 can [al
so
] be a
s
ked w
h
e
th
er perf 
o
rmance
o
n
o
ne
o
th
e five fr
o
n
ts
can beimpr
o
ved
s
ignifican
t
ly wi
thout
ma
t
erial l
oss
 
o
n an
oth
er
.
(
Th
i
s
kind
o
f di
s
c
uss
i
o
n i
s
 
th
e mea
t
and drink
o
f m
ost
reg
u
la
to
ry deba
t
e
s
.
)De
s
igner
s
 
o
r ref 
o
rmer
s
 
o
f reg
u
la
t
i
o
n
s
 
shou
ld bear in mind,
ho
wever,
th
a
t
 perf 
o
rmance
u
nder
so
me
h
eading
s
 may be linked,
u
nder cer
t
ain c
o
ndi
t
i
o
n
s
,
to
 perf 
o
rmance
u
nder
oth
er
h
eading
s
Thus
, if a reg
u
la
to
ry regime i
s
perceived by
th
ep
u
blic
to
be
u
nfair,
th
e reg
u
la
to
r may enj
o
y l
o
w level
s
 
o
f c
o
-
o
pera
t
i
o
n and
th
i
s
mayimpede perf 
o
rmance in
s
a
t
i
s
fying
th
e manda
t
e
W
h
a
t
ever
th
e p
h
il
oso
p
h
y
o
th
ereg
u
la
to
ry de
s
igner
o
r ref 
o
rmer,
th
a
t
individ
u
al
o
r in
st
i
tut
i
o
n
shou
ld be wary
o
end
o
r
s
ing reg
u
la
to
ry de
s
ign
s
 
th
a
t
 
s
c
o
re c
o
n
s
pic
uous
ly badly
o
n any
o
th
e five
t
e
sts
 H
o
w,
th
en, can legi
t
imacy be impr
o
ved in
th
e real w
o
rld?
Th
e an
s
wer i
s
by
t
aking
st
ep
s
 
to
impr
o
ve ra
t
ing
s
acc
o
rding
to
 
th
e five
t
e
sts
.
2
 
S
o
 
th
i
s
 
t
empla
t
e wa
s
devel
o
ped really in re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
w
h
a
t
wa
s
 
s
een a
s
perceived defec
ts
in
th
e C
s
Ofd
o
g m
o
del
.
 
NL
re
s
p
o
nded
to
 
th
i
s
and came
u
p wi
th
(de
s
cribed by
o
ne c
o
mmen
t
a
to
r a
s
) a newreg
u
la
to
ry m
o
del f 
o
r a
NL
g
o
vernmen
t
;
 
so
me
o
f w
h
ic
h
weve
tou
c
h
ed
o
n already
.
 
ew Labour: new regulatory model 
3
 
y
 
Reg
u
la
to
ry c
o
mmi
ss
i
o
n
o
 
A
deci
s
ive m
o
ve away fr
o
m giving p
o
wer
s
 
to
an individ
u
al DG
.
 
W
e n
o
w
h
avereg
u
la
t
i
o
n by c
o
mmi
ss
i
o
n/c
o
mmi
tt
ee
.
 
2
R. Baldwin and M. Cave,
Unde
rsta
nd 
i
ng 
R
egu
latio
n
(Oxford: OUP, 1999).
3
T. Prosser, µThe Powers and Accountability of Agencies and Regulators¶, in D. Feldman (ed.),
 E 
ng 
lish P 
ub
lic Law
(Oxford: OUP)
2
nd
edn,
2
009.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->