Evolution of the Theory and Practice of Economic Regulation: The Next Stage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the evolution of the theory and practice of economic regulation, in particular its latest stage. In the first part, the analysis concentrates on the theoretical aspect of the process. In this context, the paper points to the impact of asymmetry of information on a gradual shift of economic regulation from an approach in which regulation is viewed as a substitute of a competitive market to one that triggers market behaviours by involving companies and their customers in the regulatory process. In the second part, the author focuses on the implementation aspect, i.e. how the latter concept could be adapted to regulatory practice. Even though this concept has long been implemented in the United States as well as Canada through so-called negotiated settlements, such regulatory arrangements were until recently neglected in research reports, including those in America. The latest wave of interest in this form of regulation, particularly in the UK and Australia, is mainly due to its many advantages as demonstrated by the North American experience. The author explores the benefits of negotiated settlements against the background of doubts raised in an ongoing debate on whether such settlements are free from risks and whether they can be effectively applied elsewhere. While noting some encouraging early results in several regulated sectors in the UK, the author stresses two crucial conditions for the successful implementation of this approach: a careful design of the new regulatory arrangements and a pro-active role of the regulator. The paper’s final comments refer to the perspective of further evolution of economic regulation and the rationale for the adoption of negotiated mechanisms in regulating Poland’s district heating sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it