Talk:Regulatory economics

Untitled[edit]

Anyone up for creating an article on history of American government intervention in the economy? I think it would serve well to dispell the myth, that seems to be going around, that the U.S. economy used to be a laissez-faire sytem. RJII 19:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, why does this article have a longer criticism portion than the actual article.RVRLaw (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bcambri95, McKenzieRich, Graycake, Rosi3fish, Mckenzierichar. Peer reviewers: Shainamarco, Jcassidy6147, Martin niemiec.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

I've suggested a version of the intro that suggests various reasons for regulation, while not being assuming any of them. What do people think? How could I improve this? Best, Meelar (talk) 21:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Added "Regulatory Capture" for context[edit]

I added "Regulatory Capture" to the Lead for context because for one reason, "regulation" seems to be defined here with no context, in a vacuum as if say, the properties of "regulation" were undiluted, or fixed in stone or even omnipotent. Regulatory Capture is one way to put it back in the context of the real world and suggest another way that regulatory agencies and regulations may effect the actual population.
--69.110.90.54 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Dr. Cebula's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Cebula has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

A significant improvement can be made in this article by focusing on the attributes of good quality regulation as opposed to regulation for its own sake or naive or destructive and unnecessarily limiting regulations. Cebula, et. al., April 2014, American J. of Econ & Sociology, provide compelling evidence of the value of good quality regulation in promoting a haelthy environment for investment and environmental stability. See also the article by Mixon, et al. same issue, regarding the EPA.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cebula has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Cebula, Richard & Clark, Jeff, 2014. "Economic Freedom, Regulatory Quality, Taxation, and Living Standards," MPRA Paper 58108, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Calzolari's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Calzolari has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The general feeling of this article is that (i) it misses some economics reasoning, (ii) it is more inclined in presenting to cons of regulation than the pros.
Important references that should be cited and referred to are: The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, Edited by Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge Print Publication Date: Sep 2010 Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, Fourth Edition, by W. Kip Viscusi, John M. Vernon and Joseph E. Harrington, MIT Press Regulatory Reform, Economic Analysis and British Experience, by Mark Armstrong, Simon Cowan and John Stuart Vickers, 1994 MIT Press
This reference on informational issue “regulation and multipart tariffs.[2]” is incomplete. The correct reference should be to the book A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation, by Jean-Jacques Laffont and Jean Tirole, 1994 MIT Press.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Calzolari has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Carlo Scarpa & Giacomo Calzolari, 2009. "On Regulation and Competition: Pros and Cons of a Diversified Monopolist," Working Papers 2009.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POL 150C Peer Review[edit]

The article is generally well written and I found no spelling or grammar problems. What should possibly be worked on is an expansion of certain key areas and concepts within the article. The idea of information asymmetry is not thoroughly explained and could do with an expansion. Likewise the section involving regulatory capture should highlight that another typical issue with regulation is that many of the regulators often come from the industry they are regulating and so have prexisting ties. There were also a few statements which did not appear to be directly cited and should have their citations added. Other than that the article looks well conceived and formatted. JarrodE (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrodE: Thank you for the detailed feedback! It gives us a lot to focus on. Bcambri95 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Bit of Peer Review[edit]

I noticed some sections were missing citations, maybe you could find something in this paper or its sources? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013661106129 Maybe you could list some examples of regulatory capture? This one might help with the deregulation section: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/114/4/1437/1934050/What-Drives-Deregulation-Economics-and-Politics-of I don't know if this is neutral enough, but perhaps you could mention democratic and republican views in the proponents and opponents section, since there tends to be a split along those lines. Otherwise looks pretty good! Martin niemiec (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin niemiec: Thank you for providing resources with your recommendations! This should help us make the information stronger. Bcambri95 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Regulatory economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]