AbstractWell‐known theories suggest that administrative procedures may be used as mechanisms of political control of the bureaucracy. This study investigates whether three common regulatory analysis procedures—cost‐benefit analysis, risk assessment, and economic impact analysis—lead to greater influence by political officials on bureaucratic policymaking. Multivariate analyses of data from a unique survey of state administrators indicate that regulatory analysis requirements are associated with decreases in the perceived influence of elected political officials on the content of administrative rules. This association is particularly evident in cases where proposed rules are subjected to a cost–benefit test. These findings contradict prominent theories of administrative procedures, but are consistent with recent research on the political power of administrative agencies.
AbstractThere is broad consensus in the literature on regulatory enforcement and compliance that politics matters. However, there is little scholarly convergence on what politics is or rigorous theorization and empirical testing of how politics matters. Many enforcement and compliance studies omit political variables altogether. Among those that address political influences on regulatory outcomes, politics has been defined in myriad ways and, too often, left undefined. Even when political constructs are explicitly operationalized, the mechanisms by which they influence regulatory outcomes are thinly hypothesized or simply ignored. If politics is truly as important to enforcement and compliance outcomes as everyone in the field seems to agree, regulatory scholarship must make a more sustained and systematic effort to understand their relationship, because overlooking this connection risks missing what is actually driving regulatory outcomes. This article examines how the construct of "politics" has been conceptualized in regulatory theory and analyzes how it has been operationalized in empirical studies of regulatory enforcement and compliance outcomes. It brings together scholarship across disciplines that rarely speak but have much to say to one another on this subject in order to constitute a field around the politics of regulation. The goal is to sharpen theoretical and empirical understandings of when and how regulation works by better accounting for the role politics plays in its enforcement.
Artigo publicado em revista científica internacional ; Organizational strategic programs are continuously evolving and gaining the attention of policy makers in order to construct organizations' ecological and socioeconomic systems. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and sustainable development involving the mediated effect of political and regulatory influence. To achieve the core objectives of the research, the quantitative (positivism) research method is applied. The goal of the current research is made possible through the quantitative method because of its objective nature of reality. A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed among the different levels of managers; 280 respondents returned the questionnaire. The data are analyzed through a modern statistical tool called Smart-PLS, Partial Least Squares (PLS) is high graphical user interference software that is used to calculate Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) through PLS path modeling. Factor analysis is conducted to eliminate the variables that have no contribution and to reduce the variables to obtain better results in regression. The implications are for energy organizations that are struggling to deal with sustainable development and these tools can help them to achieve their sustainability goals. The study concludes that the adoption of BSC is essential to ensure sustainable development regardless of its challenges. Moreover, consideration of meta-constitutional rules as political influence is important to understand and address in order to mitigate financial loss. In nutshell, the use of BSC is highly recommended to eliminate the routine problems and to ensure environmental sustainability. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Organizational strategic programs are continuously evolving and gaining the attention of policy makers in order to construct organizations' ecological and socioeconomic systems. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and sustainable development involving the mediated effect of political and regulatory influence. To achieve the core objectives of the research, the quantitative (positivism) research method is applied. The goal of the current research is made possible through the quantitative method because of its objective nature of reality. A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed among the different levels of managers; 280 respondents returned the questionnaire. The data are analyzed through a modern statistical tool called Smart-PLS, Partial Least Squares (PLS) is high graphical user interference software that is used to calculate Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) through PLS path modeling. Factor analysis is conducted to eliminate the variables that have no contribution and to reduce the variables to obtain better results in regression. The implications are for energy organizations that are struggling to deal with sustainable development and these tools can help them to achieve their sustainability goals. The study concludes that the adoption of BSC is essential to ensure sustainable development regardless of its challenges. Moreover, consideration of meta-constitutional rules as political influence is important to understand and address in order to mitigate financial loss. In nutshell, the use of BSC is highly recommended to eliminate the routine problems and to ensure environmental sustainability. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Organizational strategic programs are continuously evolving and gaining the attention of policy makers in order to construct organizations' ecological and socioeconomic systems. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the balanced scorecard (BSC) and sustainable development involving the mediated effect of political and regulatory influence. To achieve the core objectives of the research, the quantitative (positivism) research method is applied. The goal of the current research is made possible through the quantitative method because of its objective nature of reality. A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed among the different levels of managers; 280 respondents returned the questionnaire. The data are analyzed through a modern statistical tool called Smart-PLS, Partial Least Squares (PLS) is high graphical user interference software that is used to calculate Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) through PLS path modeling. Factor analysis is conducted to eliminate the variables that have no contribution and to reduce the variables to obtain better results in regression. The implications are for energy organizations that are struggling to deal with sustainable development and these tools can help them to achieve their sustainability goals. The study concludes that the adoption of BSC is essential to ensure sustainable development regardless of its challenges. Moreover, consideration of meta-constitutional rules as political influence is important to understand and address in order to mitigate financial loss. In nutshell, the use of BSC is highly recommended to eliminate the routine problems and to ensure environmental sustainability.
Literature on the operation of regulatory agencies and their interactions with the executive branch of government is well established. Much less attention has been devoted to the relationship between these agencies and the courts, especially in case of judicial review of regulators' decisions. This paper examines how judicial review of regulatory decisions produces clashes and agreements between regulatory agencies and the courts, and the influence of these relationships on regulatory governance. The research was conducted in Brazil with 21 interviews, consisting of eight officials of six federal regulatory agencies, seven attorneys from five agencies, and six federal judges. Regulatory governance, institutional theory, and regulatory overlap were the main analytical frameworks for this research. Data was subjected to content analysis. The findings showed that judicial review plays an important role in the overlapping scopes between courts and regulatory agencies. The institutional details of regulatory governance are crucial for the regulatory bodies to function. Despite the conflicts, judges seek more coordination with regulators, because of a greater awareness of the specifics of regulatory policies. Attorneys of regulatory bodies perform a key role in the dialogue between regulators and courts, especially by bridging the gap between technical and legal protocols. Regulatory litigation provides powerful economic agents with the opportunity to obtain a successful remittance of fines, thereby diluting the regulators' ability to enforce regulation. Points for practitioners Judicial review is the only coordinating mechanism between regulatory agencies and the courts and plays a crucial role in defining regulatory policies and in controlling administrative behavior. In the process of judicial review, regulatory bodies confront the uncertainties that mark the blurred boundaries between the roles performed by state actors and authorities in dealing with regulation. By examining the Brazilian case, the research sheds light on regulatory governance and deals with the balance of power between the judiciary and formally independent regulatory bodies. The findings indicate the value of closer dialogue between regulators and courts in a context where regulatory agencies are increasingly called upon to make important technical and social choices on highly sensitive public issues.
AbstractRegulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are being diffused progressively throughout the world following the recommendations of international organizations. Research has shown that the diffusion of RIA has not produced convergence in actual practices, particularly in developing countries, due to political forces at work in domestic contexts or the available organizational capacities. The Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) has recently recommended that the Brazilian federal government adopt RIA. This article evaluates how contextual variables, specifically political and organizational ones, influence RIA adoption in Brazil. It is based on field research consisting of semi‐structured interviews with the main stakeholders of the Brazilian regulatory framework. The research explored RIA concept familiarity among stakeholders, the bureaucratic context, the policy process, pivotal stakeholders' standpoints in adopting RIA, and available organizational capacities. Contrary to previous studies in developing countries, the research reveals that strong organizational capacities are not a sufficient factor for successful diffusion of RIA, because political variables can influence divergence among agencies in future RIA practices.
