According to Aidan Atkinson, while the majority of regulatory initiatives have well-intentioned intentions, compliance with regulations entails enormous expenses. Small enterprises, nonprofit organizations, schools, local governments, consumers, energy, banks, and farmers are all impacted by regulatory rules. Costs associated with enforcing regulations are always passed on to ordinary citizens. There are, nevertheless, certain critical disparities between government regulation and free market capitalism.
Few studies have previously examined the effect of government regulation on productivity and creativity. According to the scant information available, the overall annual cost of regulation is estimated to exceed $2 trillion. However, when the potential drag on economic growth is considered, government regulation costs almost $4 trillion each year - or nearly $13,000 for every American. Along with the regulatory costs, there are lost employment, discoveries, and entrepreneurial opportunities that could have been realized but were not. In short, accounting for all the costs of government regulation on innovation and growth would be prohibitively expensive.
The literature on the political economy of regulation develops and tests positive theories in order to analyze the consequences of regulation. According to these theories, regulation happens through the allocation of factors of production, which results in the formation of constituency interests. In the political arena, these constituent interests respond to these impacts. While interest group politics may appear to conflict with a public interest perspective on regulation, they do not contradict more general "private interest" views. Additionally, study in the political economics of regulation must take into account the impact of regulation on economic performance. Regulation's political economy is complex and linked, and academics should include both of these elements when analyzing the influence of regulation.
While fiscal policies and government regulation are generally agreed upon, their implementation is frequently contentious. Regulations and expenditure programs frequently pass the expense on to the customer through reduced salaries and increased pricing for consumer products. Additionally, many regulations are executed with a high degree of secrecy. The true costs of regulation are concealed and hence borne by all Americans. A society with a diverse population, divergent interests, and significant government growth is inevitably going to have debates regarding the government's policy objectives.
Aidan Atkinson thinks that the costs associated with government regulation and policy can stifle productive private investments. Many tiny pioneering enterprises lack the means and experience necessary to obtain government permission and frequently sell out to larger organizations with the resources and skills necessary to meet regulatory criteria. Additionally, the inability of businesses to plan ahead for the speedy conclusion of plant siting and licensing processes makes them wary of taking risks. As a result, government-imposed policies on businesses can stifle competition and innovation, resulting in higher prices.
The term "rational ignorance" refers to a psychological state in which the cost of acquiring knowledge about a certain policy outweighs the benefits. For instance, a typical voter lacks sufficient knowledge of banking regulations to exert influence over regulators' decisions. In such a case, there will be widespread outrage, leading in a demand for stronger controls. Once the public outrage dies down, regulators may adopt a more moderate stance.
An economic model is used to quantify the impacts of government regulation. This framework focuses on identifying gaps and distinctions between different countries' regulatory regimes. The adoption of this method necessitates extensive data collecting both prior to and following the regulatory innovation. In an ideal world, the time series would be quite long. This enables academics to examine the long-term influence of regulation on firms. If the data set is not sufficiently long, this strategy is ineffective. Additionally, the findings from this approach are not generalizable.
While Washington's deregulation process may be sluggish, political deadlock has already begun. The Environmental Protection Agency has relaxed restrictions for the coal industry, while Obama-era fuel economy regulations have been lowered. The Trump administration has eased limitations in the health and education sectors. Additionally, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has spoken out against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The federal government should consider creating a new agency with explicit statutory authority to delegate regulatory authority.
Aidan Atkinson feels that the success of a demand-driven approach depends on the ability to identify and estimate the costs and demand functions of the industry. This work is simplified in regulated industries since regulatory bodies have precise firm-level information. Such data is often comparable between firms and over extended time periods. However, there are numerous issues with the consistent accounting system. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis should take into consideration the distinctions between regulated and unregulated industries.
