Command and control regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:38, 17 August 2020

Latest revision as of 21:58, 28 February 2024

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Type of rule-making; contrasted with direct investments and incentives in climate policy}}

'''Command and Control (CAC) regulation''' finds common usage in academic literature and beyond. The relationship between CAC and environmental policy is considered in this article, an area that demonstrates the application of this type of regulation. However, CAC is not limited to the environmental sector and encompasses a variety of different fields.

Line 18 ⟶ 19:

A CAC approach in policy is used for several reasons. It has been proposed that by imposing fixed standards with the force of law behind them, CAC can respond more quickly to activities which do not abide by the set standards.<ref name="Baldwin"/> It also has benefits politically as the regulator (often the government) is seen to be acting swiftly and decisively.<ref name="Baldwin"/>

It is far from a problem free form of regulation,; the 1980s in particular saw CAC subject to widespread criticism. A good number of the critics tend to favour market-based strategies and are often dubious of the merits of governmental regulatory approaches <ref name="Baldwin"/>

Some issues highlighted include:<ref name="Baldwin"/>

Line 68 ⟶ 69:

The traditional model of command and control typically involved areas of environmental concern being dealt with by national governments. In recent decades, transboundary environmental problems have risen in prominence. This shift has exposed many of the limitations of a command and control approach when it is applied to a larger and more complex arena.<ref name="james">Evans, J. (2012) Environmental Governance. ''Elsevier.''</ref>

Climate change is often used to exemplify the perceived failings of this regulatory approach. Climate change is good example of a concern that is complex, full of uncertainties and difficult for many people to understand.<ref name="downie">Downie, D. (2005) Global environmental policy: governance through regimes. ''In: Axelrod, R., Downie, D., Vig, N. (Eds.) The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy. 2nd ed.'' Washington DC: CQ pass. pp. 64-82.</ref> This may gohelp someway in explainingexplain the apparent incompatibility of climate change and a CAC approach. Mitigating climate change requires action of a much more proactive nature than traditional CAC models are able to deliver.

One reason for the lack of compatibility with many international environmental agreements is the manner in which the international community is organised. International law cannot be implemented in the same way as law at national level.<ref name="hunter">Hunter, D., Salzman, J., Zaelke, D. (2002) International Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Foundation Press</ref> Given that theThe CAC approach relies heavily on prohibiting certain activities and then enforcing itthe prohibition through sanctions, which makes the scaling- it up to the international level problematic. Without a strong international enforcement body it is unlikely that CAC will be an effective tool for dealing with most transboundary environmental issues, climate change included.<ref name="downie"/>

===Future of command and control regulation in environmental policy===