Blockchain technology has great potential to reshape the financial industry. However, the existing policy and regulatory regimes fail to provide a supportive environment for blockchain technology to fulfill its potential. In this article, I propose technology-enabled co-regulation as a new approach to blockchain implementation, especially in the financial markets. This approach has two distinctive elements: a collaborative environment and a technology-enabled mechanism. A collaborative environment consists of regulatory and industry sandboxes in which regulators and industry representatives can experiment with novel ideas. A technology-enabled mechanism is empowered by regulatory technologies (RegTech) and supervisory technologies (SupTech) that support compliance with regulatory and reporting requirements and facilitate supervisory obligations. This technology-enabled co-regulation can help to achieve policy and regulatory goals: a fair and efficient market, financial stability, consumer and investor protection, law enforcement efficiency, and, most importantly, technology innovation. Technology-enabled co-regulation is preferable to traditional command-and-control regulation and self-regulation. Its collaborative and technological elements are also more advanced than a simple co-regulation is. To reach this conclusion, I conducted an impact assessment of proposed regulatory options. The impact assessment consists of five analytic steps, asking the following questions: What problems have emerged from existing policies and regulations? What are the objectives of the proposed regulations? What are the regulatory options? What are the possible impacts? How do the options compare?
{"title":"Technology-Enabled Co-Regulation as a New Regulatory Approach to Blockchain Implementation","authors":"J. Jiang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3900290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3900290","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain technology has great potential to reshape the financial industry. However, the existing policy and regulatory regimes fail to provide a supportive environment for blockchain technology to fulfill its potential. In this article, I propose technology-enabled co-regulation as a new approach to blockchain implementation, especially in the financial markets. This approach has two distinctive elements: a collaborative environment and a technology-enabled mechanism. A collaborative environment consists of regulatory and industry sandboxes in which regulators and industry representatives can experiment with novel ideas. A technology-enabled mechanism is empowered by regulatory technologies (RegTech) and supervisory technologies (SupTech) that support compliance with regulatory and reporting requirements and facilitate supervisory obligations. This technology-enabled co-regulation can help to achieve policy and regulatory goals: a fair and efficient market, financial stability, consumer and investor protection, law enforcement efficiency, and, most importantly, technology innovation. Technology-enabled co-regulation is preferable to traditional command-and-control regulation and self-regulation. Its collaborative and technological elements are also more advanced than a simple co-regulation is. To reach this conclusion, I conducted an impact assessment of proposed regulatory options. The impact assessment consists of five analytic steps, asking the following questions: What problems have emerged from existing policies and regulations? What are the objectives of the proposed regulations? What are the regulatory options? What are the possible impacts? How do the options compare?","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91112784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article provides a definition of “gatekeeper” in the context of digital markets. Within that discussion, it also asks whether the term is useful within antitrust. The Article also discusses potential concerns with gatekeepers that go beyond the standard litany of antitrust theories of harm—namely, information asymmetries and the representations made to users and businesses.
{"title":"Online Gatekeepers to Commerce and Culture","authors":"John M. Yun","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3791526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3791526","url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides a definition of “gatekeeper” in the context of digital markets. Within that discussion, it also asks whether the term is useful within antitrust. The Article also discusses potential concerns with gatekeepers that go beyond the standard litany of antitrust theories of harm—namely, information asymmetries and the representations made to users and businesses.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86259923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The increased use of online sales channels has led the Commission to prioritise competition law enforcement and regulatory intervention in digital markets. In this paper we show how the Commission has stepped up its efforts to ensure that there is a single digital market so that consumers in the EU can shop freely, irrespective of the location of the trader. On matters of substance, antitrust and the Geo-Blocking Regulation converge in achieving this objective. In this paper we caution against an overly aggressive stance by suggesting an effects-based approach to assess these practices, which is supported by recent case-law as well as by economic studies considering the impact of facilitating cross –border sales of copyrighted content. On matters of procedure, both antitrust and the Geo-blocking regulation appear to converge towards a more responsive method of enforcement which should be developed and codified.
{"title":"Keeping Geo-Blocking Practices in Check: Competition Law and Regulation","authors":"G. Monti","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3789176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3789176","url":null,"abstract":"The increased use of online sales channels has led the Commission to prioritise competition law enforcement and regulatory intervention in digital markets. In this paper we show how the Commission has stepped up its efforts to ensure that there is a single digital market so that consumers in the EU can shop freely, irrespective of the location of the trader. On matters of substance, antitrust and the Geo-Blocking Regulation converge in achieving this objective. In this paper we caution against an overly aggressive stance by suggesting an effects-based approach to assess these practices, which is supported by recent case-law as well as by economic studies considering the impact of facilitating cross –border sales of copyrighted content. On matters of procedure, both antitrust and the Geo-blocking regulation appear to converge towards a more responsive method of enforcement which should be developed and codified.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82210142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Information processing has been defined as “the change (processing) of information in any manner detect- able by an observer, a process that describes everything that happens in the universe, from the falling of a rock to the printing of a text file from a digital computer system.” Human society has long realized that information processing and sharing are essential to the pursuit of physical, social, and economic well-being. Knowing and sharing information about one’s surroundings is essential to success in the physical world. Knowing and sharing information about one’s “neighbors” is essential to success in the social world. “Knowing-your-customers” (KYC) in order to serve them well is the supreme norm for success in the business world. Sharing that information – the Yellow Pages practice that makes certain personal information, such as name, telephone number, and address public – has become a tradition in modern human relations.
The pervasive use of digitized information has reached a new height that we call the era of "big data." While this has led to unprecedented societal cooperation, it has also intensified three major concerns: How can we properly protect personal privacy in the age of big data? How do we understand and manage the ownership and distribution of benefits and risks arising from the use of data? Will the use of big data lead to "winner-take-all" markets that undermine competition to the detriment of consumers and society? These are the subjects of this report.
We focus on analyzing concrete evidence about "big data" to draw conclusions on its impact. As Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase (1994) suggested, it is important to step away from pure "blackboard economics" that tends to only live in [a theoretician's] mind: "what we need is more empirical work ... An inspired theoretician might do as well without such empirical work, but ... the inspiration is most likely to come through the stimulus provided by the patterns, puzzles, and anomalies revealed by the systematic gathering of data, particularly when the prime need is to break our existing habits of thought."
This viewpoint is particularly relevant because, unlike many production inputs, data has the properties of non-rivalry and non-separability. Unless an evidence-based, integrated and multi-stakeholder approach is adopted, users can be unintentionally hurt in the name of protection. We don’t want to "dismember the goose that laid the golden egg."
{"title":"Understanding Big Data: Data Calculus in the Digital Era","authors":"Report Luohan Academy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3780882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3780882","url":null,"abstract":"Information processing has been defined as “the change (processing) of information in any manner detect- able by an observer, a process that describes everything that happens in the universe, from the falling of a rock to the printing of a text file from a digital computer system.” Human society has long realized that information processing and sharing are essential to the pursuit of physical, social, and economic well-being. Knowing and sharing information about one’s surroundings is essential to success in the physical world. Knowing and sharing information about one’s “neighbors” is essential to success in the social world. “Knowing-your-customers” (KYC) in order to serve them well is the supreme norm for success in the business world. Sharing that information – the Yellow Pages practice that makes certain personal information, such as name, telephone number, and address public – has become a tradition in modern human relations.<br><br>The pervasive use of digitized information has reached a new height that we call the era of \"big data.\" While this has led to unprecedented societal cooperation, it has also intensified three major concerns: How can we properly protect personal privacy in the age of big data? How do we understand and manage the ownership and distribution of benefits and risks arising from the use of data? Will the use of big data lead to \"winner-take-all\" markets that undermine competition to the detriment of consumers and society? These are the subjects of this report.<br><br>We focus on analyzing concrete evidence about \"big data\" to draw conclusions on its impact. As Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase (1994) suggested, it is important to step away from pure \"blackboard economics\" that tends to only live in [a theoretician's] mind: \"what we need is more empirical work ... An inspired theoretician might do as well without such empirical work, but ... the inspiration is most likely to come through the stimulus provided by the patterns, puzzles, and anomalies revealed by the systematic gathering of data, particularly when the prime need is to break our existing habits of thought.\"<br><br>This viewpoint is particularly relevant because, unlike many production inputs, data has the properties of non-rivalry and non-separability. Unless an evidence-based, integrated and multi-stakeholder approach is adopted, users can be unintentionally hurt in the name of protection. We don’t want to \"dismember the goose that laid the golden egg.\"","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80610835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides an overview of the competitive issues surrounding online platforms. The general theme is that while much has been made of the structural features of online platforms there is little hard evidence that these are durable monopolies. Nonetheless, there are concerns about the behaviour of large online digital platforms arising from their vertical integration, self-preferencing, killer acquisitions, and agglomeration. Developments in and relevance to ASEAN countries are discussed.
{"title":"The Competition Economics of Digital Platforms","authors":"C. Veljanovski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3923884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923884","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of the competitive issues surrounding online platforms. The general theme is that while much has been made of the structural features of online platforms there is little hard evidence that these are durable monopolies. Nonetheless, there are concerns about the behaviour of large online digital platforms arising from their vertical integration, self-preferencing, killer acquisitions, and agglomeration. Developments in and relevance to ASEAN countries are discussed.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86231899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Failures to understand the constraints and incentives facing decisionmakers have resulted in the creation of the myth that property rights and spectrum markets would have been superior to the regulatory system of the Radio Act of 1927. Discussions of hypothetical spectrum property rights in the 1920s fail to take account of (1) the vast differences between the radio propagation conditions in the radio spectrum in use then and propagation in the bulk of the radio spectrum today and (2) the technical limitations of equipment at that time. The author concludes that spectrum property rights would have resulted in more radio service in urban areas, a substantial loss of rural service, and diminished consumer welfare.
{"title":"Dispelling Revisionist Myths Regarding Spectrum Property Rights in the 1920s","authors":"C. Jackson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3779464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3779464","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Failures to understand the constraints and incentives facing decisionmakers have resulted in the creation of the myth that property rights and spectrum markets would have been superior to the regulatory system of the Radio Act of 1927. Discussions of hypothetical spectrum property rights in the 1920s fail to take account of (1) the vast differences between the radio propagation conditions in the radio spectrum in use then and propagation in the bulk of the radio spectrum today and (2) the technical limitations of equipment at that time. The author concludes that spectrum property rights would have resulted in more radio service in urban areas, a substantial loss of rural service, and diminished consumer welfare.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87079169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Natural gas currently represents close to a third of U.S. primary energy consumption and has often been described as a bridge fuel in the context of the ongoing energy transition. As coal plants are retired and the share of variable renewable resources in the U.S. power markets grows, power sector CO2 emissions are declining and gas-fired power plants increasingly relied upon to provide peak and balancing services to complement the variable electricity supply from wind and solar plants. Growth in gas-fired electricity generation in the past decade has made the power sector the largest user of the U.S. interstate gas pipeline network, just ahead of the industrial and building sectors. Nevertheless, future gas demand from these latter two sectors, and from the power sector, is expected to be reduced by policy and regulatory initiatives aimed at electrification of heating loads and economy-wide decarbonization. These developments open up important questions around the role of the U.S. interstate pipeline network in the ongoing energy transition. Such questions include what changes may be needed in the gas transportation markets to provide more flexible gas delivery services to gas-fired generators that provide valuable balancing in the power markets, and how long-term stranded asset risk for gas transportation infrastructure should be managed in the face of electrification and decarbonization. The objective of this paper is to facilitate further research to address these types of questions by outlining the main market features and regulations important for understanding the U.S. gas transportation market.
{"title":"The U.S. Gas Pipeline Transportation Market: An Introductory Guide with Research Questions for the Energy Transition","authors":"Kristina Mohlin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3775725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3775725","url":null,"abstract":"Natural gas currently represents close to a third of U.S. primary energy consumption and has often been described as a bridge fuel in the context of the ongoing energy transition. As coal plants are retired and the share of variable renewable resources in the U.S. power markets grows, power sector CO2 emissions are declining and gas-fired power plants increasingly relied upon to provide peak and balancing services to complement the variable electricity supply from wind and solar plants. Growth in gas-fired electricity generation in the past decade has made the power sector the largest user of the U.S. interstate gas pipeline network, just ahead of the industrial and building sectors. Nevertheless, future gas demand from these latter two sectors, and from the power sector, is expected to be reduced by policy and regulatory initiatives aimed at electrification of heating loads and economy-wide decarbonization. These developments open up important questions around the role of the U.S. interstate pipeline network in the ongoing energy transition. Such questions include what changes may be needed in the gas transportation markets to provide more flexible gas delivery services to gas-fired generators that provide valuable balancing in the power markets, and how long-term stranded asset risk for gas transportation infrastructure should be managed in the face of electrification and decarbonization. The objective of this paper is to facilitate further research to address these types of questions by outlining the main market features and regulations important for understanding the U.S. gas transportation market.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86374466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic has called for and generated massive novel government regulations to increase social distancing for the purpose of reducing disease transmission. A number of studies have attempted to guide and measure the effectiveness of these policies, but there has been less focus on the overall efficiency of these policies. Efficient social distancing requires implementing stricter restrictions during periods of high viral prevalence and rationing social contact to disproportionately preserve gatherings that produce a good ratio of benefits to transmission risk. To evaluate whether US social distancing policy actually produced an efficient social distancing regime, we tracked consumer preferences for, visits to, and crowding in public locations of 26 different types. We show that the US’s rationing of public spaces, post-spring 2020, has failed to achieve efficiency along either dimension. In April 2020 the US did achieve notable decreases in visits to public spaces and focused these reductions in locations that offer poor benefit-to-risk trade-offs. However, this achievement was marred by an increase, from March to April, in crowding at remaining locations due to fewer locations remaining open. In December 2020, at the height of the pandemic so far, crowding in and total visits to locations were higher than in February, before the US pandemic, and these increases were concentrated in locations with the worst value-to-risk tradeoff.
{"title":"The Efficiency of US Public Space Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Seth G. Benzell, A. Collis, C. Nicolaides","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3774478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3774478","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has called for and generated massive novel government regulations to increase social distancing for the purpose of reducing disease transmission. A number of studies have attempted to guide and measure the effectiveness of these policies, but there has been less focus on the overall efficiency of these policies. Efficient social distancing requires implementing stricter restrictions during periods of high viral prevalence and rationing social contact to disproportionately preserve gatherings that produce a good ratio of benefits to transmission risk. To evaluate whether US social distancing policy actually produced an efficient social distancing regime, we tracked consumer preferences for, visits to, and crowding in public locations of 26 different types. We show that the US’s rationing of public spaces, post-spring 2020, has failed to achieve efficiency along either dimension. In April 2020 the US did achieve notable decreases in visits to public spaces and focused these reductions in locations that offer poor benefit-to-risk trade-offs. However, this achievement was marred by an increase, from March to April, in crowding at remaining locations due to fewer locations remaining open. In December 2020, at the height of the pandemic so far, crowding in and total visits to locations were higher than in February, before the US pandemic, and these increases were concentrated in locations with the worst value-to-risk tradeoff.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87870042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When consumers trade financial products, they typically use well-identified service providers that operate under government regulation. In theory, decentralized platforms like Ethereum can offer trading services ‘on-chain’ without an obvious entry point for regulators. Fortunately for regulators, most trading volume in blockchain-based assets is still on centralized service providers for performance reasons. However this leaves the following research questions we address in this paper: (i) is secure trading (i.e., resistant to front-running and price manipulation) even feasible as a fully ‘on-chain’ service on a public blockchain, (ii) what is its performance benchmark, and (iii) what is the performance impact of novel techniques (e.g., ‘rollups’) in closing the performance gap? To answer these questions, we ‘learn by doing’ and custom design an Ethereum-based call market (or batch auction) exchange, Lissy, with favorable security properties. We conduct a variety of optimizations and experiments to demonstrate that this technology cannot expect to exceed a few hundred trade executions per block (i.e., 13s window of time). However this can be scaled dramatically with off-chain execution that is not consumer-facing. We also illustrate, with numerous examples throughout the paper, how blockchain deployment is full of nuances that make it quite different from developing in better understood domains (e.g., cloud-based web applications).
{"title":"Trading On-Chain: How Feasible is Regulators’ Worst-Case Scenario?","authors":"Mahsa Moosavi, Jeremy Clark","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3769340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3769340","url":null,"abstract":"When consumers trade financial products, they typically use well-identified service providers that operate under government regulation. In theory, decentralized platforms like Ethereum can offer trading services ‘on-chain’ without an obvious entry point for regulators. Fortunately for regulators, most trading volume in blockchain-based assets is still on centralized service providers for performance reasons. However this leaves the following research questions we address in this paper: (i) is secure trading (i.e., resistant to front-running and price manipulation) even feasible as a fully ‘on-chain’ service on a public blockchain, (ii) what is its performance benchmark, and (iii) what is the performance impact of novel techniques (e.g., ‘rollups’) in closing the performance gap? To answer these questions, we ‘learn by doing’ and custom design an Ethereum-based call market (or batch auction) exchange, Lissy, with favorable security properties. We conduct a variety of optimizations and experiments to demonstrate that this technology cannot expect to exceed a few hundred trade executions per block (i.e., 13s window of time). However this can be scaled dramatically with off-chain execution that is not consumer-facing. We also illustrate, with numerous examples throughout the paper, how blockchain deployment is full of nuances that make it quite different from developing in better understood domains (e.g., cloud-based web applications).","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81758764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is an introduction to meta-research, a systematic and replicable process of synthesizing research findings across a body of original research. After introducing the reader to the core of meta-research methodology, meta-research logic and tools are applied to present an evidence synthesis of empirical research on responsive regulation. The article concludes with a meta-research agenda for regulation and governance scholarship, and five key lessons from the empirical responsive regulation literature.
{"title":"Why Meta-Research Matters to Regulation and Governance Scholarship: An Illustrative Evidence Synthesis of Responsive Regulation Research","authors":"J. van der Heijden","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3762531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3762531","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an introduction to meta-research, a systematic and replicable process of synthesizing research findings across a body of original research. After introducing the reader to the core of meta-research methodology, meta-research logic and tools are applied to present an evidence synthesis of empirical research on responsive regulation. The article concludes with a meta-research agenda for regulation and governance scholarship, and five key lessons from the empirical responsive regulation literature.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77221411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：