Status Updates From Understanding Regulation: T...

Monopolprisreglering med mål AC.

The producer, Pfizer, challenged this ban on the basis that there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify the use of the precautionary principle. The European Court of First Instance backed the ban, but placed emphasis on the importance of there being scientific knowl- edge (provided by technocratic regulatory agencies) that would justify the application of the precautionary principle.

European cartel office: The provisions were ‘revolutionary’ in a number of ways. First, the reforms moved from an ex ante centralized notification system to an ex post decentralized deterrence regime. This placed responsibility on firms to formulate agreements that were in compliance with EU competition law.

The fourth, ‘ad hoc’, view of multi-level regulation regards all such debates with a degree of scepticism. Instead, it contends that multi-level regulation is characterized by ad hoc responses to particular problems and that there is not much consistency across different regimes.

The ‘deliberative’ perspective stresses the capacity of multi-level regulation to deliver opportunities for increased deliberation and bargaining among actors—and to do so where participation cuts across institutional boundaries.

forts. Another, very different, line of thought emphasizes the importance of subsidiarity. The subsidiarity principle, historically used by the Roman Catholic Church to suggest that welfare provision should start with the family before states (or other institutions) should become involved, advocates that the default position for locating regulatory functions is the lowest level possible, /

From the ‘polycentricity’ perspective, decentralization is inherently more
desirable than ‘large-scale organization’. This perspective emphasizes the
benefits of market-type processes that are created through regulatory competition.

4 Olika tankestrukturer.
The ‘quasi-federal’ perspective would suggest that regulation should be allocated across levels of government according to particular decision-rules, with supranational/international problems being dealt with at the interna- tional level.

inkompletta kontrakt

The fragmentation of regulatory authority carries, in addition, implications for styles of decision-making. Growing institutional fragmentation has put a premium on formalized and explicit rules that govern decision-making, and this trend has been encouraged by a growing social heterogenization and internationalization of economic actors, along with a broader reliance on formal contracts/.

kap 18

Regulatory competition is widely associated with two key ideas. The first is the notion of the ‘race to the bottom’, in which jurisdictions are in a ‘prisoner dilemma’-type constellation that drives them to adopt ever-decreasing regu- latory standards to attract mobile factors of production. / The opposite race—‘to the top’—is said to exist where jurisdictions move to higher standards /för andra

Kap 17

Much has been said about the contribution (positive and otherwise) of
courts to regulation. The powers of courts to restrict discretionary decision- making is one aspect of these discussions. Critics point to a series of issues. For example, trial-like proceedings are said to be inappropriate for dealing with polycentric issues

The term ‘accountability’ originates from the Old French ‘aconter’, which
applied to the official registration of property.

The second principle of smart regulation holds that less interventionist measures should be preferred. Again, it might be anticipated that the ‘better regulation’ approaches will encourage less prescriptive, less coercive modes of influence.

It is not sensible for regulators to aim for perfect compliance or the complete elimination of a risk. This is because enforcement costs tend to escalate as targeted levels of compliance are raised, and a point will arrive where the costs of further enforcement are not justified by the gains. Breyer refers to this as the problem of the last 10%.

Clarity
Are the rules formulated in such a way that the target group can understand them easily?
Is the target group actually capable of understanding the rules?
Is it sufficiently clear to the target group what the rules apply to?
Is it clear to the target group what rule applies?

Familiarity

Does the target group know the rules?
Do they only need to make limited efforts to find out about the rules?
Is the legislation not too elaborate?