We that new terminology is needed because the existing labels can be interpreted pejoratively. For example, if a regulator embraces a strict, rules-oriented, regulatory style, then the presumption is that the regulator is mean, adversarial and only by the book.”This “goes negative connotation does not serve the regulator well nor does it help promote environmental protection other than through punitive means. This is not to say that regulators do not or should not enforce the regulations after all that it is their primary role but this label does not convey – – that regulators with this style may be helpful and want to work with the regulated community to achieve environmental protection, rather than simply exercise their authority and be environmental cops. Therefore, we suggest that the term is more appropriate because it “precision-based” better captures a regulator’s style of focusing on enforcement of the exact rules without conveying the negative attributes associated with being power hungry and adversarial. Precision is typically a positive term used to describe accuracy and care, which are laudable traits in a regulator. By contrast, a Lilliputian who embraces a flexible, results-oriented regulatory style may be perceived as soft, easily manipulated, and ripe for regulatory capture. However, the implication is negative for the regulator. Being flexible and willing to work with counterparts is a quintessential part of interactions, and regulatory interactions necessitate give and take from both sides (Axelrod 1984, 1997; Posner 2000; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone 1998; McCaffrey et al. 2007).However, this label indicates that regulators with this style are easily taken advantage of and succumb to the regulated community. Instead, we argue that the label “intention-based” enforcement style better conveys that regulators who embrace this style examine the intentions of the regulated facility and they consider the intent of the regulation. Although this label does
We that new terminology is needed because the existing labels can be interpreted pejoratively. For example, if a regulator embraces a strict, rules-oriented, regulatory style, then the presumption is that the regulator is mean, adversarial and only “goes by the book.”This negative connotation does not serve the regulator well nor does it help promote environmental protection other than through punitive means. This is not to say that regulators do not or should not enforce the regulations – after all that it is their primary role – but this label does not convey that regulators with this style may be helpful and want to work with the regulated community to achieve environmental protection, rather than simply exercise their authority and be environmental cops. Therefore, we suggest that the term “precision-based” is more appropriate because it better captures a regulator’s style of focusing on enforcement of the exact rules without conveying the negative attributes associated with being power hungry and adversarial. Precision is typically a positive term used to describe accuracy and care, which are laudable traits in a regulator. By contrast, a Lilliputian who embraces a flexible, results-oriented regulatory style may be perceived as soft, easily manipulated, and ripe for regulatory capture. However, the implication is negative for the regulator. Being flexible and willing to work with counterparts is a quintessential part of interactions, and regulatory interactions necessitate give and take from both sides (Axelrod 1984, 1997; Posner 2000; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone 1998; McCaffrey et al. 2007).However, this label indicates that regulators with this style are easily taken advantage of and succumb to the regulated community. Instead, we argue that the label “intention-based” enforcement style better conveys that regulators who embrace this style examine the intentions of the regulated facility and they consider the intent of the regulation. Although this label does
RinfretandPautz.docx