No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2021
Discretion gives decision makers choices as to how resources are allocated, or how other aspects of state largesse or coercion are deployed. Discretionary state power challenges aspects of the rule of law, first by transferring decisions from legislators to departments, agencies and street-level bureaucrats and secondly by risking the uniform application of key fairness and equality norms. Concerns to find alternative and decentred forms of regulation gave rise to new types of regulation, sometimes labeled ‘regulatory capitalism’. Regulatory capitalism highlights the roles of a wider range of actors exercising powers and a wider range of instruments. It includes also new forms of discretion, for example over automated decision making processes, over the formulation and dissemination of league tables or over the use of behavioural measures. This paper takes a novel approach by linking and extending the significant literature on these changing patterns of regulatory administration with consideration of the changing modes of deployment of discretion. Using this specific lens, we observe two potentially contradictory trends: an increase in determining and structuring administrative decision, leading to a more transparent use of discretion; and the increased use of automated decision making processes which have the potential of producing a less transparent black box scenario.
Rebecca Schmidt’s research is financed by the VIROS project (Vulnerability in the Robot Society), funded by the Research Council of Norway (project number 247947).
1 Davis, KC Discretionary Justice in European and America (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1976) p 1Google Scholar.
2 Dicey, AV Introduction to the Law of the Constitution (London: Macmillan, 8th edn, 1915)Google Scholar.
4 Ayres, I and Braithwaite, J Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Braithwaite, J ‘The essence of responsive regulation’ (2011) 44 University of British Columbia Law Review 475Google Scholar; Parker, C ‘Twenty years of responsive regulation: an appreciation and appraisal’ (2013) 7 Regulation & Governance 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nagarajan, above n 3.
6 D Levi-Faur ‘The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism’ (2005) 598 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 12; J Jordana ‘Globalizing regulatory capitalism’ (2005) 598 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 184; J Braithwaite Regulatory Capitalism: How it Works, Ideas for Making it Work Better (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008); D Levi-Faur ‘Regulatory capitalism’ in P Drahos (ed) Regulatory Theory (Canberra: ANU Press, 2017).
7 US Executive Order 13707, 15 September 2015.
9 Hansen, PG and Jespersen, AM ‘Nudge and the manipulation of choice: a framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy’ (2013) 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation 3Google Scholar.
11 Coglianese, C and Lehr, D ‘Regulating by robot: administrative decision making in the machine-learning era’ (2017) 105 The Georgetown Law Journal 1147Google Scholar; Yeung, K ‘Algorithmic regulation: a critical interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finck, M ‘Automated decision-making and transparency in administrative law’ in Cane, P (ed) The Oxford Handbook on Comparative Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020)Google Scholar.
12 Esping-Andersen, G The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.
13 Scott, C ‘Privatization and regulatory regimes’ in Moran, M et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
14 G Majone (ed) Regulating Europe (London: Routledge, 1996); Levi-Faur, above n 6.
16 M Freedland ‘Tendencies of modern administration and their effect on administrative discretion’ (paper presented at the 25th Colloquy on European Law, Oxford) p 44.
17 P Vincent-Jones The New Public Contracting: Regulation, Responsiveness, Relationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
18 Zumbansen, P ‘Law after the welfare state: formalism, functionalism and the ironic turn of reflexive law’ (2008) 58 American Journal of Comparative Law 769Google Scholar; HS Aasen et al (eds) Juridification and Social Citizenship in the Welfare State (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014); Benish, A and Maron, A ‘Infusing public law into privatized welfare: lawyers, economists, and the competing logics of administrative reform’ (2016) 50 Law & Society Review 953CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 D Levi-Faur ‘The welfare state: a regulatory perspective’ (2014) 92 Public Administration 599; D Mabbett ‘The regulatory rescue of the welfare state’ in D Levi-Faur (ed) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011) p 215.
20 J Black ‘Forms and paradoxes of principles-based regulation’ (2008) 3 Law & Policy 425.
21 T Hadden ‘Strict liability and the enforcement of regulatory legislation’ (1970) Criminal Law Review 496; C Scott ‘Criminalising the trader to protect the consumer’ in I Loveland (ed) Frontiers of Criminality (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995) p 150.
22 J Braithwaite and V Braithwaite ‘The politics of legalism: rules versus standards in nursing-home regulation’ (1995) 4 Social and Legal Studies 307.
23 S Gilad ‘It runs in the family: meta-regulation and its siblings’ (2010) 4 Regulation & Governance 485.
24 A Reiss ‘Consequences of compliance and deterrence models of law enforcement for the exercise of police discretion’ (1984) 47 Law & Contemporary Problems 83.
25 J Black ‘Managing discretion’ in J Dobinson ‘Penalties: policy, principles and practice in government regulation’ (2001) 79 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 1 at 3 ff.
26 Ayres and Braithwaite, above n 4.
27 Black, above n 25, at 9–11.
28 Levi-Faur, above n 6; Braithwaite, above n 6; C Scott ‘Regulatory capitalism, accountability and democracy’ in A Bianculli et al (eds) Accountability and Regulatory Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
29 C Harlow and R Rawlings Law & Administration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edn, 2009) p 198.
30 S Picciotto ‘Corporate social responsibility for international business’ in The Development Dimension of FDI: Policy and Rule-Making Perspectives, Proceedings of the Expert Meeting held in Geneva, 6–8 November 2002, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UN, 2003) 151; C Parker ‘Meta-regulation: legal accountability for corporate social responsibility’ in D McBarnet et al (eds) The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) p 207; C Scott ‘Reflexive governance, meta-regulation and corporate social responsibility: the Heineken effect?’ in N Boeger et al (eds) Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008) p 170.
31 F Cafaggi ‘New foundations of transnational private regulation’ (2011) 38 Journal of Law and Society 20.
32 S Courville ‘Understanding NGO-based social and environmental regulatory systems: why we need new models of accountability’ in M Dowdle (ed) Public Accountability: Design, Dilemmas and Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) p 271.
33 J Black and A Murray ‘Regulating AI and machine learning: setting the regulatory agenda’ (2019) 10 European Journal of Law and Technology.
34 J Bullock ‘Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service’ (2020) 25(4) Information Polity 491.
35 Davis, above n 1, p 4.
36 T Evans Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-Level Bureaucracy (London: Routledge, 2010/2016) p 33.
37 R Dworkin Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977) p 31; Harlow and Rawlings, above n 29, p 203.
38 K Hawkins ‘The use of legal discretion: perspectives from law and social science’ in K Hawkins (ed) The Uses of Discretion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) p 14 at p 19 ff.
39 R Epstein ‘The perilous position of the rule of law and the administrative state’ (2013) 36 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 5.
40 R Baldwin et al Understanding Regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p 54.
41 R Goodin ‘Welfare, rights and discretion’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 232 at 232–233.
42 P Cane Controlling Administrative Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
43 Davis, above n 1, p 5.
44 In the UK, for example, Cabinet Office The Judge Over your Shoulder (1st edn, 1994) and its sister publication Cabinet Office The Ombudsman in your Files (1997). The latter benefits from a more proactive monitoring and enforcement mechanism in the form of the Ombudsman (formally the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration). At EU level see European Ombudsman The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (1 March 2002).
45 Freigang, above n 5; McDonald, above n 5. A significant variant on the critique of responsive regulation is the claim that the hegemonic status of responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement circles has masked ‘regulation without enforcement’ as a dimension of the state's efforts to legitimate capitalist enterprise without impeding it. The complaint here is not about discretion, per se, but is rather concerned with the unwillingness of advocates of responsive regulation to admit that it is ineffective, for example failing to prevent the global financial crisis of 2008: S Tombs Social Protection after the Crisis (Bristol: Policy Press, 2016) ch 4.
46 McDonald, above n 5, at 216.
47 British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology  AC 610.
48 A McHarg ‘Administrative discretion, administrative rule-making, and judicial review’ (2017) 70 Current Legal Problems 267 at 271.
52 A Ogus ‘Corrective taxes and financial impositions as regulatory instruments’ (1998) 61(6) MLR 767; P John et al Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think – Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behaviour (London: Bloomsbury, 2011).
53 PG Hansen and AM Jespersen ‘Nudge and the manipulation of choice: a framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy’ (2013) 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation 3; C Sunstein ‘The ethics of nudging’ (2015) 32 Yale Journal on Regulation 413.
54 R Brownsword ‘Code, control, and choice: why east is east and west is west’ (2005) 25 Legal Studies 1.
55 Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11; Yeung, above n 11; Brownsword, above n 10; Finck, above n 11.
56 Finck, above n 11, p 2.
58 Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, at 1160–1167.
60 Finck, above n 11, pp 5–6.
61 See Rechtbank Den Haag, C-09-550982-HA ZA 18-388 (English) (5.2.2020), available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878.
62 Brownsword, above n 10. See also Lessig, above n 10.
63 Brownsword, above n 10, pp 3ff; Yeung, above n 11.
64 Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, at 1171.
65 Yeung, above n 11, at 507–509.
66 Facebook, for example, uses AI to detect harmful content violating its community standards. See https://ai.facebook.com/blog/community-standards-report/.
67 But see in particular the fairly extensive engagement by Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, with both the legality of machine learning, and on the effects they have on administrative decision making. Yeung, above n 11, at 514–516.
68 See for instance UK Office for Artificial Intelligence ‘A guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector’ available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/a-guide-to-using-artificial-intelligence-in-the-public-sector.
69 See EE Joh ‘The new surveillance discretion: automated suspicion, big data, and policing (2016) 10 Harvard Law & Policy Review 15.
70 B Kingsbury et al ‘The emergence of global administrative’ (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 15.
72 With regard to the Security Council see eg the committees responsible for executing sanctions: Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1718 (2006) Guidelines of the Committee for the Conduct of its Work as revised and adopted by the Committee on 31 December 2014); in the case of the World Bank see the Policy and Procedure Framework, available at https://policies.worldbank.org/sites/ppf3/Pages/Manuals/Operational%20Manual.aspx.
73 See, just as one example, the procedures for standard setting in the Forest Stewardship Council: FSC ‘Standard setting in FSC’ FSC-RP-Standard Setting V1-1 (2016).
74 See eg The Global GAP ‘Standard development policy’, available at https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/what-we-do/globalg.a.p.-certification/standard-setting/.
75 A Loconto and E Fouilleux ‘Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational sustainability governance’ (2014) 8 Regulation & Governance 166; P Verbruggen and T Havinga ‘The rise of transnational private meta-regulators’ (2016) 21 Tilburg Law Review: Journal on International and Comparative Law 116.
76 ISEAL Setting Social and Environmental Standards ISEAL Code of Good Practice, Version 6.0 December 2014, available at https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2017-11/ISEAL_Standard_Setting_Code_v6_Dec_2014.pdf.
78 ISEAL Alliance Assuring Compliance with Social and Environmental Standards, Version 2.0 January 2019, available at https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2018-02/ISEAL_Assurance_Code_Version_2.0.pdf.
80 OECD The Governance of Regulators (2012).
81 R Schultz and GB Doern ‘No longer “governments in miniature”: Canadian Sectoral Regulatory Institutions’ in GB Doern and S Wilks (eds) Changing Regulatory Institutions in Britain and North America (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998).
82 C Hood et al The Government of Risk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
83 MA Eisner Regulatory Politics in Transition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd edn, 2000).
84 P Cane ‘Judicial review and bureaucratic impact: international and interdisciplinary perspectives’ in M Hertogh and S Halliday (eds) Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
85 C Hood et al Regulation Inside Government: Waste-Watchers, Quality Police, and Sleaze-Busters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
86 M Bovens and S Zouridis ‘From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control’ (2002) 62 Public Administration Review 174.
87 Nagarajan, above n 3, p 161 ff.
88 GlobalGAP ‘GLOBALG.A.P.'s milestone with the International Accreditation Forum IAF’ (2016), available at https://www.globalgap.org/de/newsartikel/GLOBALG.A.P.s-Milestone-with-the-International-Accreditation-Forum-IAF/.
89 UK Government ‘Consultation Principles 2016’, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492132/20160111_Consultation_principles_final.pdf. This document is remarkably informal, with no authorship attributed, nor details of who published it, or when.
90 European Commission ‘Better regulation for better results – an EU agenda’ (2015) vol COM(2015) 215 final.
91 Ofcom OfCom's Consultation Principles (2010).
92 C Hall et al Telecommunications Regulation: Culture, Chaos and Interdependence Inside the Regulatory Process (London: Routledge, 2000).
93 C Graham Regulating Public Utilities: A Constitutional Approach (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000); T Prosser Law and the Regulators (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
94 LADOT ‘ATSAC 21st century automated signal control’, available at https://ladot.lacity.org/projects/transportation-technology/atsac. See also Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, at 1161.
95 Office for Artificial Intelligence, above n 68.
96 Black and Murray, above n 33.
97 European Commission ‘White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to Excellence and Trust’ COM (2020) 65 final.
98 For ISO/IEC see the work of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42, available at https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html. For the IEEE see website available at https://standards.ieee.org/initiatives/artificial-intelligence-systems/index.html?utm_expid=.qavZBKmuRnmUw2AK_BZo7g.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F#related-standards.
99 WTO ‘Agreement on technical barriers to trade’, Annex 3 Code of good practice for the preparation, adoption and application of standards.
100 ISO/IEC Guide 59: 1994 Preview – Code of Good Practice for Standardization (1994).
101 ISEAL Setting Social and Environmental Standards, above n 76.
102 See above n 74.
103 P Hampton Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement (March 2005).
104 Food Standards Agency Statement of Compliance with Regulators’ Compliance Code: Update - April 2012 (2012).
105 US Securities and Exchange Commission ‘MIDAS Market Information Data Analytics System’, see https://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/midas.html#.X4REWi8RqL4.
106 Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, at 1166.
107 See above n 59.
108 Coglianese and Lehr, above n 11, at 1163 referring to D DeBarr and M Harwood ‘Relational mining for compliance risk’, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04debarr.pdf.
109 See above n 61.
110 ISEAL Assuring Compliance with Social and Environmental Standards, above n 78.
111 See ISO/IEC 17020:2012, Conformity Assessment – Requirements for the Operation of Various Types of Bodies Performing Inspection; and a number of related standards.
112 See ISO ‘New ISO/IEC standards to increase confidence in audits and certification’ available at https://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/standards-news/new-isoiec-standards-increase-confidence-audits-and-certification-101012.html.
113 GlobalGAP General Regulations, Part III – Certification Body and Accreditation Rules (2019) available at https://www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents/190201_GG_GR_Part-III_V5_2_en.pdf.
114 See GlobalGAP CIPRO – The Certification Integrity Program available at https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/what-we-do/the-gg-system/integrity-program/CIPRO/index.html.
115 Black, above n 25, at 16.
116 Brownsword, above n 10, p 4.
118 Joh, above n 69.
120 Interpol ‘International child sexual exploitation database’, available at https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Databases/International-Child-Sexual-Exploitation-database.
121 Zavrsnik, above n 119, at 570, referring to BW Schermer et al Legal Aspects of Sweetie 2.0 (Tilburg: Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, 2016).
122 See for instance APPR ‘About the public safety assessment’ available at https://advancingpretrial.org/psa/factors/.
123 Joh, above n 69, at 27–32.
124 Department of Trade and Industry Enforcement Concordat: Good Practice Guide for England & Wales (1998); Black, above n 25, at 26.
125 Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, s 64(2).
126 Competition and Markets Authority Administrative Penalties: Statement of Policy on the CMA's Approach (2014).
128 GlobalGAP General Regulations, Part I – General Requirements (2019) para 6.4 available at https://www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents/190201_GG_GR_Part-I_V5_2_en.pdf.
129 ISEAL Assuring Compliance with Social and Environmental Standards, above n 78.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.