Good question

I was asked the other day whether, since I write repeatedly about regulations that I think are bad, did I have a good opinion about any regulations.

Of course I do. Regulations are what government departments and administrative bodies create to implement laws that are passed by the legislature. So bad laws beget bad regulations, and good laws beget good regulations, mostly.

Justifications matter. So regulations that are for genuinely * public goods, or correct externalities that are difficult or hugely expensive to internalise, or to sustain basic ** rights, will get my initial approval but have to pass two more tests.

Results matter. So regulations need to create more benefits than costs, as a whole. They have to achieve the stated aim, and do so better than any other solution, and be auditable.

Incentives matter. So knock-on effects need to be taken into account – will regulation x have unintended consequences that increase its costs, or diminish its effectiveness? They often do, and this is where I tend to find fault with them.

* Often people nominate things as public goods when they are not.

** I think the scope of human rights needs to be curtailed. When rights become obligations on others to do something for you against their will, we have a problem. I will return to this in another post.

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Good question

  1. john walker says:

    I think the very narrow base of most current forms of representation of the public interest , shrinking memberships of political partys, and ‘official’ advisors – like the pedestrian council that are rarely questioned as to the who and how many they represent. Plays a increasing role in the way regulations are created these days.
    It creates lot of room for ” Rent Seeking” and for big gaps between intention and result.

  2. Pingback: The right rights

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *