Excess regulatory zeal: The Chinese case
The US passes through periods of intense regulatory activity and periods of deliberate regulatory neglect. There’s a broad sense that the nation’s current economic woes could have been avoided had the SEC and other regulatory bodies taken a more active approach to regulating major financial instituitions. But there’s also a long-standing and widespread sense that the government should keep its mitts off, as manifested, for example, in the current health care debate. These two orientations seem to play off against one another over time and even at the same time. Or so it seems to me, though “the politics of regulation” would not be one of my preferred “Jeopardy!” categories.
The foregoing is by way of introduction to a fascinating piece by Sharon LaFraniere in today’s New York Times on the phase through which China now seems to be passing. I know about as much about China as I do about regulatory politics (i.e., very little in either case), so my purpose here is just to call the article to your attention in case you haven’t already seen it. Any reactions from those who know more about these matters than I do?
Comments
While the education level and experience of local officials are probably involved, this reminds me of those articles about arcane laws like the one that makes it illegal in some Nebraska county to put a dress on a horse or the law in Vermont that makes it illegal to wear a hat while dining in a public place (both imaginary examples).
Posted by: Ken Wedding | October 26, 2009 07:21 AM
A list of laws and rules in the US: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm
Also, it’s interesting that the NYT article equates one small town to the whole China.
Posted by: Real examples | October 26, 2009 08:00 PM
I don’t see it as about “regulation” at all. These are local rules, not national policies. It’s petty corruption and laziness interacted with authoritarian politics. The money saved from not building a speed bump and instead ordering students to salute passing cars was probably turned into a delicious meal for the creative local officials that came up with it. I’d argue that these types of policies are not about enforcing morality [as the US examples in the comment above tend to be] and more about expropriating.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 26, 2009 08:25 PM
Jeremy:
Your statement that “I don’t see it as about “regulation” at all. These are local rules, not national policies” is simply a non sequitur. Are all regulations national? Do you live in a state or locality where there are no state or local regulations? Please tell me where that is.
Posted by: Lee Sigelman | October 26, 2009 08:49 PM
The policy is also controversial in China, but the original intent of the policy was to prevent kids from running around on the country roads when vehicles approach them, which has contributed to many accidents in the local area. See original Chinese language reports here: http://bbs.local.163.com/bbs/localguizhou/102182099.html
It may indeed be a stupid policy, however well intended, but it’s also not very smart to draw grand conclusions from one local incident. A bit journalistic for an academic. And for the NY Times to come up with that title, it’s yellow journalism.
Posted by: regulatory zeal or sensationalism? | October 27, 2009 01:28 AM
Regulatory Zeal…:
Thanks for the information. I had no intention of drawing grand conclusions about a subject on which I have zero expertise. Just posting an interesting item.
Posted by: Lee Sigelman | October 27, 2009 12:24 PM