Command and control regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:06, 17 May 2016

Revision as of 00:32, 16 July 2016

Line 1:

‘Command'Command and Control’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.

==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 Regilation. 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 10 ⟶ 9:

Although environmental policy has a long history, a proliferation of policy making in this area occurred in the 1970s and continued to today. The CAC approach dominated policy in industrial nations during this decade because the general focus was on that of remedial policies rather than more comprehensive prevention techniques.<ref name="bocher">Bocher, M. (2011) A theorectical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. "Forest Policy and Economics'. Elsevier</ref> Whilst many view CAC negatively, direct regulatory control is still used in many countries' environmental policy.<ref name="bocher"/>

==Enforcement and Compliancecompliance==

To deliver its objectives, direct regulation must ensure the highest level of compliance possible. This can be achieved through appropriate implementation and enforcement . Non-compliance to CAC regulation presents a serious challenge to its effectiveness <ref name="abbot">Abbot, C. (2009) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. ''Environmental Law Review. 38.''</ref> The manner in which CAC is enforced differs between countries. For example, in the USA, some regulators who are tasked with implementing CAC techniques are given rule-making powers. Whereas in the UK, regulatory standards are more commonly set by departments of government. This is achieved through both primary and secondary legislation which is subsequently exacted by regulatory bureaucracies.<ref name="Baldwin"/> Regulation differs within countries as well, in the UK the current regulatory sanctioning system possesses variations between powers and practices among regulators.<ref name="macrory">Macrory, R. (2006) Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective. ''Final Report''</ref>

To deliver its objectives, direct regulation must ensure the highest level of compliance possible. This can be achieved through appropriate implementation and enforcement . Non-compliance to CAC regulation presents a serious challenge to its effectiveness <ref name="abbot">Abbot, C. (2009) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. ''Environmental Law Review. 38.''</ref> The manner in which CAC is enforced differs between countries. For example, in the USA, some regulators who are tasked with implementing CAC techniques are given rule-making powers. Whereas in the UK, regulatory standards are more commonly set by departments of government. This is achieved through both primary and secondary legislation which is subsequently exacted by regulatory bureaucracies.<ref name="Baldwin"/> Regulation differs within countries as well, in the UK the current regulatory sanctioning system possesses variations between powers and practices among regulators.<ref name="macrory">Macrory, R. (2006) Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective. ''Final Report''</ref>

Enforcement of CAC often involves the use of uniform sanctions, this can result in small businesses feeling the burdens of regulation more severely than companies of a larger size.<ref name="macrory"/>

==Strengths and Weaknessesweaknesses of approach==

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"/>

Line 32 ⟶ 29:

==Efficiency==

Much of the literature on regulatory instruments considers efficiency in terms of monetary costs. CAC has been labelled by many critics as ‘inefficient’ as a system that spends resources but generates little revenue.<ref name=sinclair>Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D. (2002) Leaders and Laggards: Next Generation Environmental Regulation. UK: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.</ref> The cost of compliance is perceived to be high, which can result in costs that are higher than the sanctions for non-compliance. A summary of 10 studies demonstrated significant differences in cost between CAC and least cost alternatives.<ref name="tieten">Tietenberg,T. (1991) Economic Instruments for Environmental Regulation. "In: Helm, D., Pearce, D. (ed.) Economic Policy towards the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press."</ref>

Line 38 ⟶ 34:

In some circumstances, CAC regulation can end up being a less costly option. Whilst economic instruments may act to reduce compliance costs, in certain cases their total costs may actually be higher, This may stem from the high level of monitoring that is required to make an incentivised method viable and successful.<ref name="candg"/>

==Environmental Regulation regulation==

===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 Policyl. 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.”

Line 53 ⟶ 48:

It has been argued that the use of the CAC approach to solve environmental problems can result in unexpected consequences if the application is conducted uncritically.<ref name="holling"/> Much of environmental policy to date has been associated with the term Disjointed Incrementalism. This term was coined by Lindblom<ref name="lind">Lindblom, C. (1979) Still muddling, not yet through. ''Public Administration Review.'' 517-526.</ref> and describes the small and often unplanned changes that have occurred in the field of environmental regulation. These changes in regulation often address small-scale problems with laws tuned towards the particular area of concern. This approach is criticised on the grounds that it does not take into account the wider causes of environmental issues.

===International Environmentalenvironmental Agreementsagreements===

====Montreal Protocol====

Line 68 ⟶ 63:

Defining this agreement as a CAC approach is slightly problematic as the agreement does not directly instruct states how to meet their targets. However, the aim of the Montreal Protocol has been to eliminate the source of CFC emissions, as a result the only really feasible way for a state to achieve this would be through a ban on substances related to Ozone depletion. Montreal is considered by some to be a 'special case' of a successful CAC approach.<ref name="james"/>

====Climate Changechange====

{{See also|Climate Changechange|Kyoto Protocol}}

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>

Line 76 ⟶ 71:

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

The international nature of many contemporary environmental issues makes CAC regulatory approaches difficult. Since the 1970s enthusiasm for the implementation of economic incentives for regulation has been on the increase. This is due, in part, to the disenchantment with command and control.<ref name="handm">Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. (2004) Economic Instruments versus Command and Control. ''Resources. pp. 13-17.''</ref> The shift away from CAC does not seem to be slowing, the increased participation of a variety of actors may be the answer. The role of environmental [[NGOs]] in policy making has changed drastically in recent decades. Their numbers and the influence they exert over national governments and negotiations at international level has risen.<ref name="mc"/> The involvement of NGOs has assisted the development of international policy in a number of ways. A great deal of environmental policy has been influenced by research collected by these organisations. They also act as whistleblowers, updating the regulators of progress and compliance. A blend of different approaches, involving a range of actors and regulatory types may be the best answer. However, it is likely that many governments will persist with CAC because of the political benefits and the fact that it is not always as inflexible and inefficient as many economists would suggest.<ref name="mc">McCormick, J. (1999) The Role of Environmental NGOs in International Regimes. ''In: Vig, N., Axelrod, R. (Eds.) The Global Environment: Institutions, Laws and Policy.'' UK: Earthscan.</ref>

==References==

{{reflist|30em}}

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Economics of regulation]]