Nils Köbis, Sharon Oded, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Shuyu Huang, Benjamin van Rooij
Companies increasingly adopt internal norms to enhance compliance with legal rules. However, the rapid growth in volume and complexity of such internal rules may obstruct employee knowledge and understanding of such internal rules, and therefore also their compliance. The present study seeks to understand whether shorter and more accessible formats of internal company norms will yield better knowledge and understanding of such norms. The study consists of an extensive online field experiment randomly assigning 1235 employees of an international technology company to four treatments. In the long policy condition, employees received a 19-page traditional policy written in standard legalese language. The short policy condition entailed a shortened two-page version of this classic policy, and in the infographic condition, employees received an illustrated overview of the essential rules on a single page. A fourth group received no policy and served as a control condition. After reading the policy, employees completed several measures assessing their rule knowledge, perceived social norms, and played an incentivized bribery game. We find that (a) none of the types of policies presented improves rule knowledge or reduces corrupt behavior compared to the control treatment, and (b) no differences exist between the policies in influencing rules knowledge or reducing corrupt behavior. Instead, we find robust evidence indicating that people form their beliefs about corporate norms and decide how to behave in situations presenting high-corruption risk based on what they consider to be the norm. The paper discusses its implications for existing literature on codes of conduct and internal norms, on ethics training, as well as on legal knowledge development.
{"title":"Is Less More? Field Evidence on the Impact of Anti-Bribery Policies on Employee Knowledge and Corrupt Behavior","authors":"Nils Köbis, Sharon Oded, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Shuyu Huang, Benjamin van Rooij","doi":"10.1111/rego.70023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70023","url":null,"abstract":"Companies increasingly adopt internal norms to enhance compliance with legal rules. However, the rapid growth in volume and complexity of such internal rules may obstruct employee knowledge and understanding of such internal rules, and therefore also their compliance. The present study seeks to understand whether shorter and more accessible formats of internal company norms will yield better knowledge and understanding of such norms. The study consists of an extensive online field experiment randomly assigning 1235 employees of an international technology company to four treatments. In the <i>long policy</i> condition, employees received a 19-page traditional policy written in standard legalese language. The <i>short policy</i> condition entailed a shortened two-page version of this classic policy, and in the <i>infographic</i> condition, employees received an illustrated overview of the essential rules on a single page. A fourth group received no policy and served as a <i>control</i> condition. After reading the policy, employees completed several measures assessing their rule knowledge, perceived social norms, and played an incentivized bribery game. We find that (a) none of the types of policies presented improves rule knowledge or reduces corrupt behavior compared to the control treatment, and (b) no differences exist between the policies in influencing rules knowledge or reducing corrupt behavior. Instead, we find robust evidence indicating that people form their beliefs about corporate norms and decide how to behave in situations presenting high-corruption risk based on what they consider to be the norm. The paper discusses its implications for existing literature on codes of conduct and internal norms, on ethics training, as well as on legal knowledge development.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143940201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katie Attwell, Hang Duong, Amy Morris, Leah Roberts, Mark Navin
COVID‐19 amplified the issue of public resistance to government vaccination programs. Little attention has focused on people's moral reasons for noncompliance, which differ from—but often build upon—the epistemic claims they make about vaccine safety and efficacy, disease severity, and the trustworthiness of government. This study explores the drivers of noncompliance with the COVID‐19 vaccination program in Western Australia, using in‐depth interviews with refusers. Distrust in the government and concerns about safety, efficacy, and necessity (rationality) drive noncompliance when vaccination is voluntary. When governments mandate vaccines, rationales expand to include cost–benefit analyses of consequences, consideration of available alternatives, and moral justifications, with policytakers expressing “morality policy reactance” toward mandates as morality (rather than regulatory) policies. Our theoretical framework of vaccine noncompliance drivers shows distrust, rationality, and morality as interrelated and supported by social motivation. We consider policy implications and suggest holistic measures.
{"title":"Drivers of Noncompliance With Vaccine Mandates—The Interplay Between Distrust, Rationality, Morality, and Social Motivation","authors":"Katie Attwell, Hang Duong, Amy Morris, Leah Roberts, Mark Navin","doi":"10.1111/rego.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70018","url":null,"abstract":"COVID‐19 amplified the issue of public resistance to government vaccination programs. Little attention has focused on people's moral reasons for noncompliance, which differ from—but often build upon—the epistemic claims they make about vaccine safety and efficacy, disease severity, and the trustworthiness of government. This study explores the drivers of noncompliance with the COVID‐19 vaccination program in Western Australia, using in‐depth interviews with refusers. Distrust in the government and concerns about safety, efficacy, and necessity (rationality) drive noncompliance when vaccination is voluntary. When governments mandate vaccines, rationales expand to include cost–benefit analyses of consequences, consideration of available alternatives, and moral justifications, with policytakers expressing “morality policy reactance” toward mandates as morality (rather than regulatory) policies. Our theoretical framework of vaccine noncompliance drivers shows distrust, rationality, and morality as interrelated and supported by social motivation. We consider policy implications and suggest holistic measures.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143905812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We perform bibliometric analysis on documents for 255 Regulatory Impact Analyzes (RIAs) prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1980 through 2024. Using a series of automated information extraction methods, we extract references from these documents and match them to bibliographic records. We then build a database of relevant articles (whether cited in an RIA or not) and fit a two-stage regression model that predicts whether, and how many times, a reference is used in RIAs as a function of journal prestige, professional popularity, article accessibility, EPA funding, and involvement of EPA employees as co-authors. By considering cited and uncited articles related to similar scientific concepts, we can observe systematic differences in what types of research products get used in policy analysis. Academic popularity, open access status, and EPA authorship and sponsorship all predict more likely and more frequent article use. Articles in prestigious journals are no more likely to be referenced, but once referenced in the corpus are then referenced more frequently.
{"title":"The Drivers of Science Referenced in US EPA Regulatory Impact Analyses: Open Access, Professional Popularity, and Agency Involvement","authors":"Tyler A. Scott, Sojeong Kim, Liza Wood","doi":"10.1111/rego.70026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70026","url":null,"abstract":"We perform bibliometric analysis on documents for 255 Regulatory Impact Analyzes (RIAs) prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1980 through 2024. Using a series of automated information extraction methods, we extract references from these documents and match them to bibliographic records. We then build a database of relevant articles (whether cited in an RIA or not) and fit a two-stage regression model that predicts whether, and how many times, a reference is used in RIAs as a function of journal prestige, professional popularity, article accessibility, EPA funding, and involvement of EPA employees as co-authors. By considering cited <i>and</i> uncited articles related to similar scientific concepts, we can observe systematic differences in what types of research products get used in policy analysis. Academic popularity, open access status, and EPA authorship and sponsorship all predict more likely and more frequent article use. Articles in prestigious journals are no more likely to be referenced, but once referenced in the corpus are then referenced more frequently.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143893838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent literature calls for scholars to bridge the divide that has emerged between criminology and regulation and governance. In the current work, we propose that criminological opportunity theories provide one fruitful pathway to that end. Specifically, we introduce the notion of regulatory guardianship based on the concepts of guardians, guardian capability, and guardian willingness to intervene, and connect them to the regulation and governance literature. We demonstrate the utility of this perspective as the building blocks for improving theoretical understanding of the effectiveness of a broad range of parties engaged in compliance work in specific regulatory environments. Considering new empirical insights into regulatory guardianship in the design of future legislation and systems of oversight and accountability may also improve governance implementation and effectiveness.
{"title":"Reengaging Criminology in Regulation and Governance: A Synergistic Research Agenda on Regulatory Guardianship","authors":"Carole Gibbs, Fiona Chan, Rachel Boratto, Tyler Hug","doi":"10.1111/rego.70024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70024","url":null,"abstract":"Recent literature calls for scholars to bridge the divide that has emerged between criminology and regulation and governance. In the current work, we propose that criminological opportunity theories provide one fruitful pathway to that end. Specifically, we introduce the notion of regulatory guardianship based on the concepts of guardians, guardian capability, and guardian willingness to intervene, and connect them to the regulation and governance literature. We demonstrate the utility of this perspective as the building blocks for improving theoretical understanding of the effectiveness of a broad range of parties engaged in compliance work in specific regulatory environments. Considering new empirical insights into regulatory guardianship in the design of future legislation and systems of oversight and accountability may also improve governance implementation and effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143849387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael Giesen, Thomas Gehring, Simon Linder, Thomas Rixen
Assigning the preparation of decisions to specialized committees composed of member state representatives is a widespread response to the ‘governor's dilemma’, that is, the tension between competence and control, in international organizations (IOs). We theorize a causal mechanism referring to self‐selection and agenda‐setting effects and show how the resulting division of labor among IO bodies produces organizational influence beyond current accounts of committee governance. We demonstrate why specialized committees develop a distinct rationale of accommodating expertise with member state preferences, even if composed of member state representatives, and why agreed committee proposals are difficult to overcome by final decision‐making bodies. We argue that the organization of IO decision processes constitutes an important source of IO autonomy beyond the activities of IO administrations and independent from socialization or predispositions of individual committee members. Empirically, we show that IO committees meet the theoretically derived prerequisites for activating the causal mechanism and trace how committee influence according to the mechanism has shaped an important IO decision.
{"title":"Specialized Committees of International Organizations an Important Source of Organizational Autonomy","authors":"Michael Giesen, Thomas Gehring, Simon Linder, Thomas Rixen","doi":"10.1111/rego.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70022","url":null,"abstract":"Assigning the preparation of decisions to specialized committees composed of member state representatives is a widespread response to the ‘governor's dilemma’, that is, the tension between competence and control, in international organizations (IOs). We theorize a causal mechanism referring to self‐selection and agenda‐setting effects and show how the resulting division of labor among IO bodies produces organizational influence beyond current accounts of committee governance. We demonstrate why specialized committees develop a distinct rationale of accommodating expertise with member state preferences, even if composed of member state representatives, and why agreed committee proposals are difficult to overcome by final decision‐making bodies. We argue that the organization of IO decision processes constitutes an important source of IO autonomy beyond the activities of IO administrations and independent from socialization or predispositions of individual committee members. Empirically, we show that IO committees meet the theoretically derived prerequisites for activating the causal mechanism and trace how committee influence according to the mechanism has shaped an important IO decision.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143813511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Primavera de Filippi, Morshed Mannan, Wessel Reijers
Emerging technologies pose many new challenges for regulation and governance on a global scale. With the advent of distributed communication networks like the Internet and decentralized ledger technologies like blockchain, new platforms emerged, disrupting existing power dynamics and bringing about new claims of sovereignty from the private sector. This special issue addresses a gap in the literature by focusing the discourse on the issue of trust and confidence in the digital realm. In particular, looking at the evolution of the web (from Web 1.0, to Web 2.0, and then Web 3), this article analyses how every iteration reflects a different way of dealing with the problem of trust online, resulting in a different regulation and governance landscape. Technology is often regarded as a new lever of regulation, attempting to resolve the problem of “trust” online, either through the introduction of a new trusted authority (Web 2.0) or through the introduction of technological guarantees that provide more assurance—or “confidence”—in the way interactions can be operationalized (Web 3). Yet, each of these technologies also introduce new risks and governance costs, ultimately shifting the problem of trust in a new direction rather than resolving it or removing the need for trust altogether. The main contribution of the articles in this special issue is providing a better understanding of the trust challenges faced and posed by emerging technologies and demonstrating how they affect institutional governance—in both theory and practice—with a view to help policymakers find appropriate answers to these challenges.
{"title":"How to Govern the Confidence Machine?","authors":"Primavera de Filippi, Morshed Mannan, Wessel Reijers","doi":"10.1111/rego.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70017","url":null,"abstract":"Emerging technologies pose many new challenges for regulation and governance on a global scale. With the advent of distributed communication networks like the Internet and decentralized ledger technologies like blockchain, new platforms emerged, disrupting existing power dynamics and bringing about new claims of sovereignty from the private sector. This special issue addresses a gap in the literature by focusing the discourse on the issue of <jats:italic>trust</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>confidence</jats:italic> in the digital realm. In particular, looking at the evolution of the web (from Web 1.0, to Web 2.0, and then Web 3), this article analyses how every iteration reflects a different way of dealing with the problem of <jats:italic>trust</jats:italic> online, resulting in a different regulation and governance landscape. Technology is often regarded as a new lever of regulation, attempting to resolve the problem of “trust” online, either through the introduction of a new trusted authority (Web 2.0) or through the introduction of technological guarantees that provide more assurance—or “confidence”—in the way interactions can be operationalized (Web 3). Yet, each of these technologies also introduce new risks and governance costs, ultimately shifting the problem of trust in a new direction rather than resolving it or removing the need for trust altogether. The main contribution of the articles in this special issue is providing a better understanding of the trust challenges faced and posed by emerging technologies and demonstrating how they affect institutional governance—in both theory and practice—with a view to help policymakers find appropriate answers to these challenges.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143813512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although political economy (PE) has long engaged with environmental issues, climate change has remained at the margins of the field until very recently. This article argues that fully addressing the transformative challenges brought up by climate change requires a fundamental rethinking of core PE concepts related to the state, distributional struggles, economic growth, varieties of capitalism, and markets. Rather than treating the state as a neutral regulator or market facilitator, we conceptualize the green state as actively structuring transitions through mitigation policies, adaptation strategies, and the governance of just transition conflicts. Green transitions generate new distributional conflicts—within and across countries, between incumbent and emerging industries, and among social groups with unequal exposure to climate risks and transition costs. Climate policy also challenges growth-centered economic models, raising questions about the viability of green growth versus degrowth strategies. Different varieties of capitalism are evolving in response, with distinct institutional pathways shaping the speed and character of transition efforts. Finally, we critique market-based approaches that assume price mechanisms alone can drive decarbonization, highlighting the role of non-economic values, institutional constraints, and distributional struggles in shaping green markets. By linking climate change to core debates in comparative and international political economy, we identify new research agendas for understanding the uneven and contested pathways of green transitions across economic systems. This article, along with the others in this special issue on Greening the Economy: Toward a New Political Economy, aims to bridge some of these critical gaps.
{"title":"Green Transitions: Rethinking Political Economy in the Context of Climate Change","authors":"Basak Kus, Gregory Jackson","doi":"10.1111/rego.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70013","url":null,"abstract":"Although political economy (PE) has long engaged with environmental issues, climate change has remained at the margins of the field until very recently. This article argues that fully addressing the transformative challenges brought up by climate change requires a fundamental rethinking of core PE concepts related to the state, distributional struggles, economic growth, varieties of capitalism, and markets. Rather than treating the state as a neutral regulator or market facilitator, we conceptualize the green state as actively structuring transitions through mitigation policies, adaptation strategies, and the governance of just transition conflicts. Green transitions generate new distributional conflicts—within and across countries, between incumbent and emerging industries, and among social groups with unequal exposure to climate risks and transition costs. Climate policy also challenges growth-centered economic models, raising questions about the viability of green growth versus degrowth strategies. Different varieties of capitalism are evolving in response, with distinct institutional pathways shaping the speed and character of transition efforts. Finally, we critique market-based approaches that assume price mechanisms alone can drive decarbonization, highlighting the role of non-economic values, institutional constraints, and distributional struggles in shaping green markets. By linking climate change to core debates in comparative and international political economy, we identify new research agendas for understanding the uneven and contested pathways of green transitions across economic systems. This article, along with the others in this special issue on <i>Greening the Economy: Toward a New Political Economy</i>, aims to bridge some of these critical gaps.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143798576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
New governance models increasingly employ self-regulation tools like pledges and nudges to achieve regulatory compliance. These approaches premise that voluntary compliance emerges from intrinsic motivation to cooperate rather than coercive measures. Central to their success is trust—both in government institutions and among citizens. However, rising societal polarization raises critical questions about the continued effectiveness of self-regulatory approaches. This paper examines how ideological extremity, a key dimension of polarization, affects cooperation in self-regulatory contexts. We theorize that ideological extremity erodes trust in government and interpersonal trust, thereby diminishing cooperative behavior and threatening self-regulation's viability. Furthermore, we propose that extremity transforms authority dynamics, with ideological orientation and partisan alignment increasingly determining cooperation levels. Using data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and World Value Survey (WVS), we find robust evidence that ideological extremity undermines cooperation through distinct mechanisms across the ideological spectrum. While our data has limitations, our findings have important implications for policymakers implementing self-regulation tools in polarized societies. The results suggest the need to carefully consider how ideological dynamics shape the effectiveness of voluntary compliance mechanisms.
{"title":"Polarization and Voluntary Compliance: The Impact of Ideological Extremity on the Effectiveness of Self-Regulation","authors":"Libby Maman, Yuval Feldman, Tom Tyler","doi":"10.1111/rego.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70020","url":null,"abstract":"New governance models increasingly employ self-regulation tools like pledges and nudges to achieve regulatory compliance. These approaches premise that voluntary compliance emerges from intrinsic motivation to cooperate rather than coercive measures. Central to their success is trust—both in government institutions and among citizens. However, rising societal polarization raises critical questions about the continued effectiveness of self-regulatory approaches. This paper examines how ideological extremity, a key dimension of polarization, affects cooperation in self-regulatory contexts. We theorize that ideological extremity erodes trust in government and interpersonal trust, thereby diminishing cooperative behavior and threatening self-regulation's viability. Furthermore, we propose that extremity transforms authority dynamics, with ideological orientation and partisan alignment increasingly determining cooperation levels. Using data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and World Value Survey (WVS), we find robust evidence that ideological extremity undermines cooperation through distinct mechanisms across the ideological spectrum. While our data has limitations, our findings have important implications for policymakers implementing self-regulation tools in polarized societies. The results suggest the need to carefully consider how ideological dynamics shape the effectiveness of voluntary compliance mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143775964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Skills formation is a pressing issue for middle-income countries given the pace of technological change. In Latin America, scholars point to the hierarchical type of capitalism and its segmentalist skills formation system as the main roadblocks to exiting the middle-income trap. Yet we contend that focusing on national models of capitalism is limited because they do not explain within-country variations in highly unequal contexts. That is the case of the emergence of state-business cooperation for skills formation in the Mexican state of Nuevo León, which seems to contradict the national hierarchical pattern. Hence, subnational analysis might uncover alternative pathways. This paper presents a framework for understanding subnational dynamics in middle-income countries, where concerted skills formation systems may emerge. We claim that a combination of external competitive threats and state-led initiatives, like the creation of organizational clusters, can harness business collective action toward coordination in skills formation. To illustrate and further develop our model, we first identify Nuevo León's superior skills availability as well as its state and business associative capacities against the rest of the Mexican states. Next, we conduct a qualitative case study of Nuevo León as a pathway case to process-trace the operation of the hypothesized mechanisms. Our analysis underscores the joint relevance of local state and business associative capacities for skills formation in adverse institutional contexts.
{"title":"From Hierarchical Capitalism to Developmental Governance: The Emergence of Concerted Skills Formation in Middle-Income Countries","authors":"Aldo Madariaga, Mariana Rangel-Padilla","doi":"10.1111/rego.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70015","url":null,"abstract":"Skills formation is a pressing issue for middle-income countries given the pace of technological change. In Latin America, scholars point to the hierarchical type of capitalism and its <i>segmentalist</i> skills formation system as the main roadblocks to exiting the middle-income trap. Yet we contend that focusing on national models of capitalism is limited because they do not explain within-country variations in highly unequal contexts. That is the case of the emergence of state-business cooperation for skills formation in the Mexican state of Nuevo León, which seems to contradict the national hierarchical pattern. Hence, subnational analysis might uncover alternative pathways. This paper presents a framework for understanding subnational dynamics in middle-income countries, where <i>concerted</i> skills formation systems may emerge. We claim that a combination of external competitive threats and state-led initiatives, like the creation of organizational clusters, can harness business collective action toward coordination in skills formation. To illustrate and further develop our model, we first identify Nuevo León's superior skills availability as well as its state and business associative capacities against the rest of the Mexican states. Next, we conduct a qualitative case study of Nuevo León as a pathway case to process-trace the operation of the hypothesized mechanisms. Our analysis underscores the joint relevance of local state and business associative capacities for skills formation in adverse institutional contexts.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143745372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Given the ongoing climate crisis, the frequency and severity of natural disasters are increasing. These events result in enormous reconstruction costs, pose a high burden on state budgets, and potentially drive homeowners into private insolvency. One policy instrument for collectively covering such costs is a compulsory insurance scheme for natural hazards. As the impact of natural disasters is uneven, introducing mandatory insurance regulation has a range of social and financial implications. While some European countries have introduced compulsory schemes, others have adopted different policy responses. Taking this variation as the main puzzle, I consider what factors can explain the introduction of compulsory insurance for natural hazards. Building on public risk and quiet politics literature, I identify several factors and test these against three empirical cases: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. This analysis finds that focusing events are necessary for policy change, but the position and power of interest groups, as well as exogenous shocks within the EU context, were also crucial to explaining the introduction, rejection, and even termination of compulsory insurance schemes for natural hazards.
{"title":"Taking Eco-Social Risks Seriously: Explaining the Introduction of Compulsory Insurance for Natural Hazards","authors":"Anne-Marie Parth","doi":"10.1111/rego.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70019","url":null,"abstract":"Given the ongoing climate crisis, the frequency and severity of natural disasters are increasing. These events result in enormous reconstruction costs, pose a high burden on state budgets, and potentially drive homeowners into private insolvency. One policy instrument for collectively covering such costs is a compulsory insurance scheme for natural hazards. As the impact of natural disasters is uneven, introducing mandatory insurance regulation has a range of social and financial implications. While some European countries have introduced compulsory schemes, others have adopted different policy responses. Taking this variation as the main puzzle, I consider what factors can explain the introduction of compulsory insurance for natural hazards. Building on public risk and quiet politics literature, I identify several factors and test these against three empirical cases: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. This analysis finds that focusing events are necessary for policy change, but the position and power of interest groups, as well as exogenous shocks within the EU context, were also crucial to explaining the introduction, rejection, and even termination of compulsory insurance schemes for natural hazards.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143736954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：