Browsing by Author "Taylor, Christopher M."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Better by design: Business preferences for environmental regulatory reform
    (Elsevier, 2015-01-26) Taylor, Christopher M.; Pollard, Simon J. T.; Rocks, Sophie A.; Angus, Andrew
    We present the preferences for environmental regulatory reform expressed by 30 UK businesses and industry bodies from 5 sectors. While five strongly preferred voluntary regulation, seven expressed doubts about its effectiveness, and 18 expressed no general preference between instrument types. Voluntary approaches were valued for flexibility and lower burdens, but direct regulation offered stability and a level playing field. Respondents sought regulatory frameworks that: are coherent; balance clarity, prescription and flexibility; are enabled by positive regulatory relationships; administratively efficient; targeted according to risk magnitude and character; evidence-based and that deliver long-term market stability for regulatees. Anticipated differences in performance between types of instrument can be undermined by poor implementation. Results underline the need for policy makers and regulators to tailor an effective mix of instruments for a given sector, and to overcome analytical, institutional and political barriers to greater coherence, to better coordinate existing instruments and tackle new environmental challenges as they emerge.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Environmental regulation in transition: Policy officials’ views of regulatory instruments and their mapping to environmental risks
    (Elsevier, 2018-07-29) Taylor, Christopher M. ; Gallagher, Elaine; Pollard, Simon J. T.; Rocks, Sophie A.; Smith, Heather M.; Leinster, Paul; Angus, Andrew
    This study re-analysed 14 semi-structured interviews with policy officials from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to explore the use of a variety of regulatory instruments and different levels of risk across 14 policy domains and 18 separately named risks. Interviews took place within a policy environment of a better regulation agenda and of broader regulatory reform. Of 619 (n) coded references to 5 categories of regulatory instrument, ‘command and control’ regulation (n = 257) and support mechanisms (n = 118) dominated the discussions, with a preference for ‘command and control’ cited in 8 of the policy domains. A framing analysis revealed officials' views on instrument effectiveness, including for sub-categories of the 5 key instruments. Views were mixed, though notably positive for economic instruments including taxation, fiscal instruments and information provision. An overlap analysis explored officials' mapping of public environmental risks to instrument types suited to their management. While officials frequently cite risk concepts generally within discussions, the extent of overlap for risks of specific significance was low across all risks. Only ‘command and control’ was mapped to risks of moderate significance in likelihood and impact severity. These results show that policy makers still prefer ‘command and control’ approaches when a certainty of outcome is sought and that alternative means are sought for lower risk situations. The detailed reasons for selection, including the mapping of certain instruments to specific risk characteristics, is still developing.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    An evidence base and critique for environmental regulatory reform
    (Cranfield University, 2013-12) Taylor, Christopher M.; Pollard, Simon; Angus, Andrew
    Societies have established various forms of governance to protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of human activity. While direct “command and control” regulation has achieved significant improvements in environmental protection, concerns for its efficiency have led governments to seek alternative approaches to achieve environmental policy objectives. Commentators describe a shift from “government” to “governance” as policy makers and regulators seek to harness wider social forces beyond government, while risk-based regulation is pursued to target constrained regulatory resources for maximum effect. However, robust evidence for the effectiveness of different forms of regulation is lacking. This thesis addresses this gap, providing an evidence base for instrument selection and a data-informed critique of regulatory reform practice. Research followed a case study strategy, gathering qualitative data through 58 in-depth semi-structured interviews, analysed using the NVIVO™ Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis System (CAQDAS), with senior policy makers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, England (Defra) and senior executives in businesses and trade associations in 5 UK sectors. (1) A new typology of regulatory instruments has been compiled, validated with sector experts, refined for policy end-users, and published as part of Defra’s guidance on instrument selection. (2) The critical case of instrument selection in practice at Defra has been examined for the first time, revealing factors affecting choice, the use of coregulation to develop evidence and the importance of retaining policy maker skills for new forms of regulation. (3) A multiple-case study of senior business representatives found five strongly preferred voluntary regulation, seven expressed significant doubts about its effectiveness, and 19 expressed no general preference. While voluntary approaches were valued for flexibility and lower burdens, direct regulation offered stability and a level playing field. They sought inter alia coherent, evidence based regulatory frameworks, delivered through positive regulatory relationships. This research progresses the better and smarter regulation debate on the use of alternatives to direct regulation and has already been used to inform policy making in practice.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Guidance for lay audiences on regulatory instrument selection
    (Cranfield University, 2018-07-19 10:56) Pollard, Simon; Taylor, Christopher M.
    The purpose of this guide, authored by Dr Chris Taylor, is to help policy makers and regulators develop ideas for achieving policy objectives that make use of the full range of policy and regulatory instruments at your disposal (e.g. emission licences, tradable permit schemes, product labelling, voluntary agreements). It could be used to design new measures, or to identify better ways than at present to achieve objectives that harness the influence of non-government actors. It is intended to spark thinking and debate. You could use this guide to help stimulate your own thinking, or to support a discussion with your team or other stakeholders. The content focuses on describing the range of instruments that could be used and exploring when they are suitable. It focuses on instruments to tackle environmental risks, though many of the approaches described can also be used for other policy objectives. It is assumed that the reader already has a good understanding of the policy objectives to be met, the forms of market failure (e.g. polluters not compensating for damage caused) or other policy considerations that lead to the need for intervention, the stakeholders involved and the environmental, social and economic systems that connect them together. It is also assumed that the option of doing nothing has been considered but is unacceptable. In line with the Defra Policy Cycle, instrument ideas sparked from this guide will need to be developed into full proposals and their impact assessed. This development process is beyond the scope of this guide.