As scholars race to address the climate crisis, they have often treated the problem as sui generis and have only rarely sought to learn from prior efforts to make industrial operations greener. In this paper, we consider what can be learned from other shifts away from polluting substances. Drawing on literatures on corporate regulatory strategies and evolving regulatory interactions, we argue for a focus on configurations of regulatory scrutiny and industrial reform, which we then consider through case studies of several major industrial pollutants. We consider the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, which has often been cited as a model for mitigating climate change, plus three other cases: per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), leaded fuel, and mercury. We highlight four configurations of regulatory scrutiny and industrial reform: (1) progressive substitution (of ozone-depleting substances); (2) regrettable substitution (in the first waves of PFAS regulation); (3) knock-on substitution (in the phaseout of leaded fuel); and (4) narrow substitution (in the case of mercury). These configurations, and the processes that generated them, provide novel lenses for understanding climate mitigation and confronting obstructionism. They point to the diversity of positions that corporate actors may take in the face of potential or actual public regulation, and the possibility of notable divides across and within given industries, which can facilitate meaningful reforms.
{"title":"Tackling toxins: Case studies of industrial pollutants and implications for climate policy","authors":"Tim Bartley, Malcolm Fairbrother","doi":"10.1111/rego.12626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12626","url":null,"abstract":"As scholars race to address the climate crisis, they have often treated the problem as <i>sui generis</i> and have only rarely sought to learn from prior efforts to make industrial operations greener. In this paper, we consider what can be learned from other shifts away from polluting substances. Drawing on literatures on corporate regulatory strategies and evolving regulatory interactions, we argue for a focus on configurations of regulatory scrutiny and industrial reform, which we then consider through case studies of several major industrial pollutants. We consider the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, which has often been cited as a model for mitigating climate change, plus three other cases: per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), leaded fuel, and mercury. We highlight four configurations of regulatory scrutiny and industrial reform: (1) <i>progressive substitution</i> (of ozone-depleting substances); (2) <i>regrettable substitution</i> (in the first waves of PFAS regulation); (3) <i>knock-on substitution</i> (in the phaseout of leaded fuel); and (4) <i>narrow substitution</i> (in the case of mercury). These configurations, and the processes that generated them, provide novel lenses for understanding climate mitigation and confronting obstructionism. They point to the diversity of positions that corporate actors may take in the face of potential or actual public regulation, and the possibility of notable divides across and within given industries, which can facilitate meaningful reforms.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142160933","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}
Scholars of the US regulatory process routinely assert that rulemaking is “ossified”—that it has become so encumbered with procedural constraints that it is difficult for agencies to issue socially desirable regulations. Yet, this claim has rarely been subject to empirical testing, and this is particularly true at the sub‐federal (i.e., US state) level. But the same factors that allegedly cause ossification in federal agencies also exist in the states. Using original survey data from 1460 agency leaders from across all 50 states, we present evidence suggesting that state agencies issue numerous rules and appear to do so quickly. We then focus on the procedural constraints that supposedly drive ossification and present some of the first evidence questioning the argument at the state level. We conclude that fears about the supposed tendency of procedural oversight mechanisms on the ability to regulate may be exaggerated.
{"title":"Procedural constraints and regulatory ossification in the US states","authors":"Jason Webb Yackee, Susan Webb Yackee","doi":"10.1111/rego.12627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12627","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars of the US regulatory process routinely assert that rulemaking is “ossified”—that it has become so encumbered with procedural constraints that it is difficult for agencies to issue socially desirable regulations. Yet, this claim has rarely been subject to empirical testing, and this is particularly true at the sub‐federal (i.e., US state) level. But the same factors that allegedly cause ossification in federal agencies also exist in the states. Using original survey data from 1460 agency leaders from across all 50 states, we present evidence suggesting that state agencies issue numerous rules and appear to do so quickly. We then focus on the procedural constraints that supposedly drive ossification and present some of the first evidence questioning the argument at the state level. We conclude that fears about the supposed tendency of procedural oversight mechanisms on the ability to regulate may be exaggerated.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142152380","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}
Marius R. Busemeyer, Sophia Stutzmann, Tobias Tober
How do citizens perceive labor market risks related to digitalization and the green transition, and how do these risk perceptions translate into preferences for social policies? We address these questions in this paper by studying the policy preferences of individual workers on how governments should deal with the two labor market challenges of digitalization and the green transition. Employing novel cross‐country comparative survey data including a vignette experiment for six advanced postindustrial economies, we probe to what extent the different labor market challenges are associated with differences in preferences, distinguishing between support for social investment policies on the one hand and compensatory policies on the other. A first finding is that even though individuals perceive different levels of labor market risk due to the green transition and digitalization, their preferences for social policy responses do not differ systematically across the two risks. Instead, we find that social policy preferences are affected by individual‐level and, to some extent, country‐level contextual factors. Confirming previous work, higher perceived labor market risk is associated with more support for compensatory policies but less support for social investment.
{"title":"Digitalization and the green transition: Different challenges, same policy responses?","authors":"Marius R. Busemeyer, Sophia Stutzmann, Tobias Tober","doi":"10.1111/rego.12624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12624","url":null,"abstract":"How do citizens perceive labor market risks related to digitalization and the green transition, and how do these risk perceptions translate into preferences for social policies? We address these questions in this paper by studying the policy preferences of individual workers on how governments should deal with the two labor market challenges of digitalization and the green transition. Employing novel cross‐country comparative survey data including a vignette experiment for six advanced postindustrial economies, we probe to what extent the different labor market challenges are associated with differences in preferences, distinguishing between support for social investment policies on the one hand and compensatory policies on the other. A first finding is that even though individuals perceive different levels of labor market risk due to the green transition and digitalization, their preferences for social policy responses do not differ systematically across the two risks. Instead, we find that social policy preferences are affected by individual‐level and, to some extent, country‐level contextual factors. Confirming previous work, higher perceived labor market risk is associated with more support for compensatory policies but less support for social investment.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142142613","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}
Ringa Raudla, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Vytenis Cipinys, Matti Ylönen
A regulatory sandbox is an emerging tool for addressing the challenges posed by the FinTech industry, but countries have embraced it to varying degrees. There is a need to systematically examine the question: Which factors explain the diverging trajectories in countries' decision to use (or not use) this instrument? This paper examines the adoption of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech in the Baltic states, where we can observe markedly divergent trajectories. Estonia has not exploited the possibilities of this instrument, while Lithuania and Latvia adopted a regulatory sandbox in 2018 and 2021, respectively. We analyze the political, legal, administrative, and economic factors affecting the adoption (or non-adoption) of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech. We find that the decision to adopt a regulatory sandbox for FinTech is primarily influenced by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs, mechanisms of policy diffusion, and the policy actors' perceptions of legal constraints and available regulatory capacities.
{"title":"To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to FinTech","authors":"Ringa Raudla, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Vytenis Cipinys, Matti Ylönen","doi":"10.1111/rego.12630","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12630","url":null,"abstract":"A regulatory sandbox is an emerging tool for addressing the challenges posed by the FinTech industry, but countries have embraced it to varying degrees. There is a need to systematically examine the question: Which factors explain the diverging trajectories in countries' decision to use (or not use) this instrument? This paper examines the adoption of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech in the Baltic states, where we can observe markedly divergent trajectories. Estonia has not exploited the possibilities of this instrument, while Lithuania and Latvia adopted a regulatory sandbox in 2018 and 2021, respectively. We analyze the political, legal, administrative, and economic factors affecting the adoption (or non-adoption) of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech. We find that the decision to adopt a regulatory sandbox for FinTech is primarily influenced by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs, mechanisms of policy diffusion, and the policy actors' perceptions of legal constraints and available regulatory capacities.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142124084","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}
Simon Fink, Eva Ruffing, Luisa Maschlanka, Hermann Lüken genannt Klaßen
Since the 1990s, the EU has attempted to create a common electricity market. However, EU legislators are unsatisfied by the results. We argue that differentiated implementation of directives over time creates path dependencies that entrench national differences. The actor constellation of parties and incumbent operators at the beginning of the liberalization path determines how well countries implement liberalizing directives. The implementation, in turn, changes the actor constellation for the next directive, increasing or decreasing the institutional power of incumbents. We illustrate our argument analyzing the implementation of the first three energy market packages in Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries had similar electricity markets at the beginning of market liberalization, but their actor constellation was slightly different. German implementation gradually strengthened vertically integrated utilities, while Dutch implementation dismantled these utilities through unbundling. These paths became self‐reinforcing, counteracting European harmonization efforts.
{"title":"Self‐enforcing path dependent trajectories? A comparison of the implementation of the EU energy packages in Germany and the Netherlands","authors":"Simon Fink, Eva Ruffing, Luisa Maschlanka, Hermann Lüken genannt Klaßen","doi":"10.1111/rego.12617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12617","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1990s, the EU has attempted to create a common electricity market. However, EU legislators are unsatisfied by the results. We argue that differentiated implementation of directives over time creates path dependencies that entrench national differences. The actor constellation of parties and incumbent operators at the beginning of the liberalization path determines how well countries implement liberalizing directives. The implementation, in turn, changes the actor constellation for the next directive, increasing or decreasing the institutional power of incumbents. We illustrate our argument analyzing the implementation of the first three energy market packages in Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries had similar electricity markets at the beginning of market liberalization, but their actor constellation was slightly different. German implementation gradually strengthened vertically integrated utilities, while Dutch implementation dismantled these utilities through unbundling. These paths became self‐reinforcing, counteracting European harmonization efforts.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142042476","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}
This article reviews recent insights from the blooming Comparative Political Economy (CPE) literature on climate change with the aim to demonstrate the importance of integrating climate change into the field of CPE and to highlight the contributions of CPE to our understanding of the social and political obstacles to effective climate policies. In addition, we advance two key points to bring the CPE literature forward. To tighten the dialogue between the “electoral politics” and “interest group politics” approaches, we propose understanding climate politics as a triadic conflict between losers of climate change, losers of public climate action (PCA), and winners of PCA. Second, we argue that the scope of CPE studies needs expansion. While existing CPE literature predominantly focuses on climate change mitigation, it is essential to consider climate change adaptation due to its significant distributive implications at the macro- and micro-levels of societies.
{"title":"From a cultural to a distributive issue: Public climate action as a new field for comparative political economy","authors":"Hanna Schwander, Jonas Fischer","doi":"10.1111/rego.12620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12620","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews recent insights from the blooming Comparative Political Economy (CPE) literature on climate change with the aim to demonstrate the importance of integrating climate change into the field of CPE and to highlight the contributions of CPE to our understanding of the social and political obstacles to effective climate policies. In addition, we advance two key points to bring the CPE literature forward. To tighten the dialogue between the “electoral politics” and “interest group politics” approaches, we propose understanding climate politics as a triadic conflict between losers of climate change, losers of public climate action (PCA), and winners of PCA. Second, we argue that the scope of CPE studies needs expansion. While existing CPE literature predominantly focuses on climate change mitigation, it is essential to consider climate change adaptation due to its significant distributive implications at the macro- and micro-levels of societies.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142023090","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}
Libby Maman, Lauren Fahy, Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Moritz Kappler
Citizen trust in regulatory agencies is essential for the functioning of society and markets. Trust in regulatory agencies promotes compliance and strengthens trust in regulated sectors. Despite its importance, there is no systematic study on how trust is in this context can be measured best. In response, this article presents findings of a systematic review of measures of trust in regulatory contexts, assessing their utility for measuring citizen trust in regulatory agencies. Our review of recent literature and of seven major international surveys finds several areas for methodological improvement in the measurement of such trust. The review highlights that while trust in various institutions is extensively studied, high‐quality measures for regulatory agencies specifically are lacking. Both one‐off studies of trust in regulatory agencies and large international surveys of trust in government reveal an absence of systematic and consistent measurement of trust in these agencies. We propose recommendations to enhance measurement consistency, transparency, and contextual diversity. This study underscores the urgency of addressing this critical dimension of trust and provides a roadmap for improving our understanding of citizen trust in regulatory agencies.
{"title":"Measuring citizen trust in regulatory agencies: A systematic review and ways forward","authors":"Libby Maman, Lauren Fahy, Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Moritz Kappler","doi":"10.1111/rego.12618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12618","url":null,"abstract":"Citizen trust in regulatory agencies is essential for the functioning of society and markets. Trust in regulatory agencies promotes compliance and strengthens trust in regulated sectors. Despite its importance, there is no systematic study on how trust is in this context can be measured best. In response, this article presents findings of a systematic review of measures of trust in regulatory contexts, assessing their utility for measuring citizen trust in regulatory agencies. Our review of recent literature and of seven major international surveys finds several areas for methodological improvement in the measurement of such trust. The review highlights that while trust in various institutions is extensively studied, high‐quality measures for regulatory agencies specifically are lacking. Both one‐off studies of trust in regulatory agencies and large international surveys of trust in government reveal an absence of systematic and consistent measurement of trust in these agencies. We propose recommendations to enhance measurement consistency, transparency, and contextual diversity. This study underscores the urgency of addressing this critical dimension of trust and provides a roadmap for improving our understanding of citizen trust in regulatory agencies.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142002776","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}
Political decisions over economic growth policies influence the degree of bureaucratic autonomy and regulatory governance dynamics. Yet, our understanding of these processes in the Global South is somewhat limited. The article studies the post‐Global Financial Crisis period and relies on elite interviews and secondary sources from Turkey. It problematizes how an economic growth model dependent on foreign capital inflows, which are contingent on global financial cycles, influences the trajectory of bureaucratic autonomy. Specifically, we argue that dependence on foreign capital flows for economic growth creates an unstable macroeconomic policy environment: while the expansionary episode of the global financial cycle masks conflicts between the incumbent and bureaucracy, the contractionary episode threatens the political survival of the incumbent. In the case of Turkey, this has incentivized the ruling coalition to resort to executive aggrandizement to control monetary policy and banking regulation, which resulted in a dramatic decay of the autonomy of the regulatory agencies since 2013.
{"title":"Navigating financial cycles: Economic growth, bureaucratic autonomy, and regulatory governance in emerging markets","authors":"M. Kerem Coban, Fulya Apaydin","doi":"10.1111/rego.12621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12621","url":null,"abstract":"Political decisions over economic growth policies influence the degree of bureaucratic autonomy and regulatory governance dynamics. Yet, our understanding of these processes in the Global South is somewhat limited. The article studies the post‐Global Financial Crisis period and relies on elite interviews and secondary sources from Turkey. It problematizes how an economic growth model dependent on foreign capital inflows, which are contingent on global financial cycles, influences the trajectory of bureaucratic autonomy. Specifically, we argue that dependence on foreign capital flows for economic growth creates an unstable macroeconomic policy environment: while the expansionary episode of the global financial cycle masks conflicts between the incumbent and bureaucracy, the contractionary episode threatens the political survival of the incumbent. In the case of Turkey, this has incentivized the ruling coalition to resort to executive aggrandizement to control monetary policy and banking regulation, which resulted in a dramatic decay of the autonomy of the regulatory agencies since 2013.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142002766","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}
Decentralized governance technologies like blockchains are often proposed as substitutes for private legal arrangements like those provided by company law or organizational law more generally. In established legal systems in developed countries, the costs of implementing such algorithmic mechanisms are likely to be greater than the agency or other costs that come from selecting and trusting an existing third party. But even if that were not true, attempting to achieve decentralized governance solely by algorithm is more complicated than it appears and incurs significant “formalism costs.” Such costs can be reduced by the wealth of experience represented by the operational processes of organizational law. Mixing those operational processes with algorithmic governance by “opting into” organizational law, thereby letting it govern the interface between the algorithms and the real-world legal rights associated with an organization, is likely to be a governance model superior to the use of algorithmic governance alone.
{"title":"Trusting organizational law","authors":"Shawn Bayern","doi":"10.1111/rego.12616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12616","url":null,"abstract":"Decentralized governance technologies like blockchains are often proposed as substitutes for private legal arrangements like those provided by company law or organizational law more generally. In established legal systems in developed countries, the costs of implementing such algorithmic mechanisms are likely to be greater than the agency or other costs that come from selecting and trusting an existing third party. But even if that were not true, attempting to achieve decentralized governance solely by algorithm is more complicated than it appears and incurs significant “formalism costs.” Such costs can be reduced by the wealth of experience represented by the operational processes of organizational law. Mixing those operational processes with algorithmic governance by “opting into” organizational law, thereby letting it govern the <i>interface</i> between the algorithms and the real-world legal rights associated with an organization, is likely to be a governance model superior to the use of algorithmic governance alone.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141794975","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}
This contribution considers the revolution in the concept and practice of trust in corporate governance that first moved from trust in “people” to trust in “compliance,” setting the stage for the digitization of trust measures and the digitalization of compliance. Part One examines the fundamental challenge, one that arises from the near simultaneous shift in cultural expectations about trust from trust in character to trust in measurement, and then the rise of cultures of data driven systems of compliance and accountability. Part Two then considers the transformation brought by challenge responses in the form of three closely interlinked impulses: digitization, digitalization of compliance‐accountability regimes, and the emergence of platforms as spaces for trust interactions among stakeholders. Part Three then examines the current shape of these iterative dialectics, including connections between platforms and polycentric trust governance, and the detachment of trust from the entity that is its subject.
{"title":"Trust platforms: The digitalization of corporate governance and the transformation of trust in polycentric space","authors":"Larry Catá Backer","doi":"10.1111/rego.12614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12614","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution considers the revolution in the concept and practice of trust in corporate governance that first moved from trust in “people” to trust in “compliance,” setting the stage for the digitization of trust measures and the digitalization of compliance. Part One examines the fundamental challenge, one that arises from the near simultaneous shift in cultural expectations about trust from trust in character to trust in measurement, and then the rise of cultures of data driven systems of compliance and accountability. Part Two then considers the transformation brought by challenge responses in the form of three closely interlinked impulses: digitization, digitalization of compliance‐accountability regimes, and the emergence of platforms as spaces for trust interactions among stakeholders. Part Three then examines the current shape of these iterative dialectics, including connections between platforms and polycentric trust governance, and the detachment of trust from the entity that is its subject.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141764037","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：