Command and control regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:39, 10 November 2016

Revision as of 20:04, 25 February 2017

Line 2:

==Definition==

Command and Control (CAC) [[Regulation]] can be defined as “the direct regulation of an industry or activity by [[legislation]] that states what is permitted and what is illegal”.<ref name=mcmanus>McManus, P. (2009) Environmental RegilationRegulation. Australia: Elsevier Ltd.</ref> This approach differs from other regulatory techniques, e.g. the use of [[economic incentives]], which frequently includes the use of taxes and subsidies as incentives for compliance.<ref name="Baldwin">Baldwin, R., Cave, M., Lodge, M. (2011) Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press</ref>

The ‘command’ is the presentation of quality standards/targets by a government authority that must be complied with. The ‘control’ part signifies the negative sanctions that may result from non-compliance e.g. prosecution.<ref name="Baldwin"/><ref name="abbot">Abbot, C. (2009) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions ACT 2008. ''Environmental Law Review 38''</ref>

Line 27:

*[[Enforcement]]: This constitutes a very significant dilemma for a CAC regulatory approach. One of the key issues is the expense of enforcement, especially when a complex system of rules has been developed. There are also problems of scope.

Critics of CAC often point to incentive -based regulation as an alternative. Possible benefits of this approach may include cheaper administration costs and a reduction in the risk of [[regulatory capture]]. However the view that incentive-based regulation is radically different from CAC has been scrutinised. The advantages can be exaggerated, a complex system of rules is often necessary to allow an effective system, this can cause many incentive-based schemes to appear to replicate some of the characteristics of CAC. Inspection and enforcement may also be essential to prevent evasion of liability, again resembling CAC and possibly removing the posited benefits in terms of cost.<ref name="Baldwin"/> While practices may be changed at a superficial level through the use of CAC, it may not be able to achieve the changes of behaviour necessary for more sustainable environmental practices.<ref name="gandg">Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. (1998) Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. USA: Oxford University Press.</ref>

There are some commentators on the topic who prefer to use ‘direct regulatory instrument’ instead of ‘command and control’ instrument because of the negative connotations surrounding the term.<ref name="goulder">Goulder, L., Parry, I. (2008) Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2: 2. pp. 152-174.</ref>

Line 39:

===Application===

The use of Command and Control in regulation involves the government or similar body to “command” the reduction of pollution (e.g. setting emissions levels) levels and to “control” the manner in which it is achieved (e.g. by installing pollution-control technologies). It has been argued that CAC has the potential to be effective under certain conditions. Often its effectiveness can be determined by whether the problem has a diffuse or a point source. A CAC approach is relatively compatible with [[point source]] and regulation of these can often achieve success. On the other hand, CAC struggles to appropriately tackle issues that have a [[Diffusion|diffuse]], non-point source.<ref name="landr">Landy, M. Rubin, C. (2001) Civic Environmentalism: A new approach to PolicylPolicy. Washington DC: George Marshall Institute</ref> Evans<ref name="james"/> draws on the following example: “it is relatively easy to regulate the emissions from 10 large coal burning power stations in a single country, but far less easy to monitor the emissions caused by millions of motorists or the effluent discharges from tens of thousands of farms across the world.”

In [[Environmental Policy]], CAC is characterised by 3 different types of standards, the use of the standards is determined by various factors, including the nature of the environmental problem and the administrative capacities of the governing body:<ref name="ogus">Ogus, A. (2004) Comparing Regulatory Systems: Institutions, processes and legal forms in industrialised countries. ''In: Cook, P., Kirkpatrick, C. Minogue, M., Parker, D. (Eds.)'' UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.</ref>

Line 70:

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 go someway in explaining 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 the a CAC approach relies heavily on prohibiting certain activities and then enforcing it through sanctions makes the scaling-up to 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"/>

===The future CAC in environmental policy===