Freer markets, more rules: regulatory reform in advanced industrial countries

Cover -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: The Deregulation Revolution That Wasn't -- PART I: THE FORCES FOR CHANGE -- 1. Understanding Regulatory Reform -- 2. Why Change the Rules? -- 3. The United Kingdom and Japan: Two Paths to Regulatory Reform -- PART II: REGULATORY REFORM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM -- 4. Telecommunications: The Creation of Competition -- 5. Financial Services: The Big Bang and the Proliferation of Rules -- 6. Regulatory Reform British Style: The Separation of Regulatory Powers -- PART III: REGULATORY REFORM IN JAPAN -- 7. Telecommunications: Reregulation with a Vengeance -- 8. Financial Services: The Ministry of Finance and the Perpetual Bargain -- 9. Regulatory Reform Japanese Style: The Strategy Behind Slowness -- PART IV: THE POLITICS OF REGULATORY REFORM -- 10. Other Countries: The Many Roads to Reregulation -- 11. The Irony of State-Led Deregulation -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z

In defiance of conventional wisdom, Vogel contends that the deregulation revolution of the 1980s and 1990s never happened. The advanced industrial countries moved toward liberalization or freer markets at the same time that they imposed reregulation or more rules. Moreover, the countries involved did not converge in regulatory practice but combined liberalization and reregulation in markedly different ways. The state itself, far more than private interest groups, drove the process of regulatory reform. Thus, the story of deregulation is one rich in paradox: a movement aimed at reducing regulation increased it; a movement propelled by global forces reinforced national differences; and a movement that purported to reduce state power was led by the state itself

In defiance of conventional wisdom, Vogel contends that the deregulation revolution of the 1980s and 1990s never happened. The advanced industrial countries moved toward liberalization or freer markets at the same time that they imposed reregulation or more rules. Moreover, the countries involved did not converge in regulatory practice but combined liberalization and reregulation in markedly different ways. The state itself, far more than private interest groups, drove the process of regulatory reform. Thus, the story of deregulation is one rich in paradox: a movement aimed at reducing regulation increased it; a movement propelled by global forces reinforced national differences; and a movement that purported to reduce state power was led by the state itself