Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-f64jw Total loading time: 0.412 Render date: 2021-04-15T18:25:11.194Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Regulatory discretion: structuring power in the era of regulatory capitalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2021

Rebecca Schmidt
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Colin Scott
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

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).

References

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.

3 Nagarajan, V Discretion and Public Benefit in a Regulatory Agency: The Australian Authorisation Process (Canberra: ANU Press, 2013) p 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, CThe regulatory state and beyond’ in Drahos, P (ed) Regulatory Theory (Canberra: ANU Press, 2017) p 271Google Scholar.

4 Ayres, I and Braithwaite, J Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Braithwaite, JThe essence of responsive regulation’ (2011) 44 University of British Columbia Law Review 475Google Scholar; Parker, CTwenty years of responsive regulation: an appreciation and appraisal’ (2013) 7 Regulation & Governance 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nagarajan, above n 3.

5 Freigang, JIs responsive regulation compatible with the rule of law?’ (2002) 8 European Public Law 463CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDonald, LThe rule of law in the “new regulatory state”’ (2004) 33(3) Common Law World Review 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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.

8 Alemanno, AAssessing the impact of the better regulation package on the European Union – a research agenda’ (2015) 6 European Journal of Risk Regulation 344CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Hansen, PG and Jespersen, AMNudge 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.

10 L Lessig Code, Version 2.0 (New York: Basic Books, 2006); Brownsword, R Law Technology and Society – Re-Imagining the Regulatory Environment (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Coglianese, C and Lehr, DRegulating by robot: administrative decision making in the machine-learning era’ (2017) 105 The Georgetown Law Journal 1147Google Scholar; Yeung, KAlgorithmic regulation: a critical interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finck, MAutomated 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, CPrivatization 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.

15 Majone, GThe rise of the regulatory state in Europe’ (1994) 17 West European Politics 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M Loughlin and C Scott ‘The regulatory state’ in P Dunleavy et al (eds) Developments in British Politics 5 (London: Macmillan, 1997).

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, PLaw 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, AInfusing 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 [1971] AC 610.

48 A McHarg ‘Administrative discretion, administrative rule-making, and judicial review’ (2017) 70 Current Legal Problems 267 at 271.

49 Ibid.

Ibid

50 Ibid, at 278.

Ibid

51 Ibid, at 289.

Ibid

52 A Ogus ‘Corrective taxes and financial impositions as regulatory instruments’ (1998) 61(6) MLR 767; P John et al Nudge, Nudge, Think, ThinkExperimenting 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.

57 Ibid.

Ibid

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.

71 Ibid, at 15.

Ibid

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.

77 Ibid.

Ibid

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.

79 Ibid.

Ibid

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.

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.

117 Ibid, p 5.

Ibid

118 Joh, above n 69.

119 Zavrsnik, ACriminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights’ (2020) 20 ERA Forum 567CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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).

127 Cafaggi, F and Iamiceli, PSupply chains, contractual governance and certification regimes’ (2014) 37 European Journal of Law and Economics 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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.

130 Ibid.

Ibid

131 Black, JConstructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes’ (2008) 2 Regulation & Governance 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132 Langford, MTaming the digital leviathan: automated decision-making and international human rights’ (2020) 114 AJIL Unbound 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 36
Total number of PDF views: 21 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 05th April 2021 - 15th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Regulatory discretion: structuring power in the era of regulatory capitalism
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Regulatory discretion: structuring power in the era of regulatory capitalism
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Regulatory discretion: structuring power in the era of regulatory capitalism
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *