Regulatory competition

Last updated

Regulatory competition, also called competitive governance or policy competition, is a phenomenon in law, economics and politics concerning the desire of lawmakers to compete with one another in the kinds of law offered in order to attract businesses or other actors to operate in their jurisdiction. Regulatory competition depends upon the ability of actors such as companies, workers or other kinds of people to move between two or more separate legal systems. Once this is possible, then the temptation arises for the people running those different legal systems to compete to offer better terms than their "competitors" to attract investment. Historically, regulatory competition has operated within countries having federal systems of regulation - particularly the United States, but since the mid-20th century and the intensification of economic globalisation, regulatory competition became an important issue internationally.

Contents

One opinion is that regulatory competition in fact creates a "race to the top" in standards, due to the ability of different actors to select the most efficient rules by which to be governed. The main fields of law affected by the phenomenon of regulatory competition are corporate law, labour law, tax and environmental law. Another opinion is that regulatory competition between jurisdictions creates a "race to the bottom" in standards, due to the decreased ability of any jurisdiction to enforce standards without the cost of driving investment abroad.

History

The concept of regulatory competition emerged from the late 19th and early 20th century experience with charter competition among US states to attract corporations to domicile in their jurisdiction. In 1890 New Jersey enacted a liberal corporation charter, which charged low fees for company registration and lower franchise taxes than other states. Delaware attempted to copy the law to attract companies to its own state. This competition ended when Woodrow Wilson as Governor tightened New Jersey's laws again through a series of seven statutes.

In academic literature the phenomenon of regulatory competition reducing standards overall was argued for by AA Berle and GC Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) while the concept received formal recognition by the US Supreme Court in a decision of Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1933 case Ligget Co. v. Lee [1] In 1932 Brandeis also coined the term “laboratories of democracy” in New State Ice Company v. Liebmann , [2] noting that the Federal government was capable of ending experiment.

Private law

Corporate law

American corporate law scholars have debated on the role of the regulatory competition on corporate law for more than one decade. A Comparative Bibliography In the United States legal academia, corporate law is conventionally said to be the product of a "race" among states to attract incorporations by making their corporate laws attractive to those who choose where to incorporate. Given that it has long been possible to incorporate in one state while doing business primarily in other states, US states have rarely been able or willing to use law tied to where a firm is incorporated to regulate or constrain corporations or those who run them. However, U.S. states have long regulated corporations with other laws (e.g., environmental laws, employment laws) that are not tied to where a firm is incorporated, but are based on where a firm does business.[ citation needed ]

From the "race" to attract incorporations, Delaware has emerged as the winner, at least among publicly traded corporations. The corporate franchise tax accounts for between 15% and 20% of the state's budget.[ citation needed ]

In Europe, regulatory competition has long been prevented by the real seat doctrine prevailing in private international law of many EU and EEA member countries, which essentially required companies to be incorporated in the state where their main office was located. However, in a series of cases between 1999 and 2003 (Centros Ltd. vs. Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen, Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd.), the European Court of Justice has forced member states to recognize companies chartered in other member states, which is likely to foster regulatory competition in European company law. For instance, in 2008, Germany adopted new regulations on the GmbH (Limited Liability Company), allowing the incorporation of Limited Liability Companies [UG (haftungsbeschränkt)] without a minimum capital of EUR 25,000 (though 25% of earnings have to be retained until this threshold is reached).

Labour law

Countries may, for instance, seek to attract foreign direct investment by enacting a lower minimum wage than other countries, [3] or by making the labor market more flexible. [4]

Taxation

Environmental law

Legal scholars often cite environmental law as a field in which regulatory competition is particularly likely to produce a “race to the bottom” due to the externalities produced by changes in any individual state's environmental law. Because a state is unlikely to bear all of the costs associated with any environment damage caused by industries in that state, it has an incentive to lower standards below the level that would be desirable if the state were forced to bear all of the costs. [5] One commonly cited example of this effect is clean air laws, as states may be incentivized to lower their standards to attract business, knowing that the effects of the increased pollution will be spread across a wide area, and not simply localized within the state. Furthermore, a reduction in the standards of one state will incentivize other states to similarly lower their standards so as to not lose business.

Public services

Education

Sometimes higher-level governing bodies institute incentives to competition among lower-level governing bodies, [6] an example being the Race to the Top program, designed by the United States Department of Education to spur reforms in state and local district K-12 education.

The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research likewise has initiated a program called InnoRegio to reward innovative practices.

Health

The high degree of politicization of the genetically modified organism issue made it a key battleground for competition for leadership, particularly between the European Commission and the European Council of Ministers. The result has been a protracted battle over agenda setting and issue framing and a cycle of competitive regulatory reinforcement. [7]

Security

The struggle between insurgents and various Afghanistan states for power, control, popular support and legitimacy in the eyes of the public has been described as competitive governance. [8]

While during the Cold War security was provided by centralized institutions such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, now competing profit-seeking firms provide personal, national, and international security. [9]

Theory

Arnold Kling notes, "In democratic government, people take jurisdictions as given, and they elect leaders. In competitive government, people take leaders as given, and they select jurisdictions." [10] Competitive governance has thus far not produced an ultra-libertarian government; although Zac Gochenour has pointed out the role of potential international migrants' switching costs in hindering consumer choice from creating greater intergovernmental competition, Bryan Caplan has stated that "[t]he bigger problem is that almost all existing governments are either non-profits (the democracies), have short time horizons (the unstable dictatorships), or reasonably worry that if they liberalize they're lose power (the stable dictatorships)." Indeed, it has been argued by Maria Brouwer that most autocracies prefer stagnation to the vagaries inherent to expansion and other forms of innovation, since the exploration of new possibilities could lead to failure, which would undermine autocratic authority. [11] There has been some question as to whether competitive governance can be revived in Australia. [12]

Advantages

Brennan and Buchanan (1980) argue that the public sector is a 'Leviathan' which is inherently biased towards extracting money from taxpayers, but that competitive government structures can minimize such exploitation. [13] It has also been argued that a decentralized competitive government structure allows for an experimentation of new public policies without doing too much harm if they fail. [14]

Disadvantages

An alternative to market-based or competitive governance is civic-based or partnership governance. [15] Alleged disadvantages of competitive governance, compared to collaborative government, include less potential to harness the power of knowledge sharing, cooperation and collaboration within government. [16]

See also

Notes

  1. 288 U.S. 517, 558-559 (1933)
  2. 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932)
  3. K Bjorvatn; C Eckel (October 2006), "Policy competition for foreign direct investment between asymmetric countries", European Economic Review, 50 (7): 1891–1907, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2005.07.002, hdl: 11250/162818
  4. Haaland, Jan I. & Wooton, Ian (January 2002), Multinational Investment, Industry Risk and Policy Competition, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3152, SSRN   298844
  5. Berkeley Law [ permanent dead link ]
  6. A Benz; A Meincke (2005), Policy Competition in Multilevel Governance, International Workshop "Regional Governance", CiteSeerX   10.1.1.134.5357
  7. Yves Tiberghien (May 2009), "Competitive Governance and the Quest for Legitimacy in the EU: the Battle over the Regulation of GMOs since the mid-1990s", Journal of European Integration, 31 (3): 389–407, doi:10.1080/07036330902782246, S2CID   154071994
  8. G Skogstad; A Verdun (2009), Taliban Governance: Can Canada Compete? (PDF), Journal of European Integration, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-16
  9. Per Kristen Mydske; Ingo Peters. The transformation of the European nation state.
  10. Kling, Arnold (2008), Competitive Government vs. Democratic Government (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-02-15
  11. M Brouwer (2006), Democracy and Dictatorship: The Politics of Innovation (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-07
  12. W Kasper (October 2007), "Australia's hollow federalism: can we revive competitive governance?", Institute of Public Affairs Review: A Quarterly Review of Politics and Public Affairs, the, 59 (3), Institute of Public Affairs Review: A Quarterly Review: 34
  13. Boyne, George A. (3 Apr 2007), Local Government Structure and Performance: Lessons from America?, vol. 70, Public Administration, pp. 333–357[ dead link ]
  14. LP Feld; G Kirchgässner; CA Schaltegger (2003), Decentralized taxation and the size of government: evidence from Swiss state and local governments (PDF), doi:10.2139/ssrn.478261, SSRN   478261
  15. Enjolras, Bernard (September 2009), "Between Market and Civic Governance Regimes: Civicness in the Governance of Social Services in Europe", Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20 (3): 274–290, doi:10.1007/s11266-009-9091-2, S2CID   144253817
  16. F Salem; Y Jarrar (2009), Government 2.0? Technology, Trust and Collaboration in the UAE Public Sector (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-25, retrieved 2010-08-22

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporation</span> Legal entity incorporated through a legislative or registration process

A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law for certain purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter. Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. Corporations come in many different types but are usually divided by the law of the jurisdiction where they are chartered based on two aspects: whether they can issue stock, or whether they are formed to make a profit. Depending on the number of owners, a corporation can be classified as aggregate or sole.

Business is the practice of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products. It is also "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonprofit organization</span> Organization operated for a collective benefit

A nonprofit organization (NPO), also known as a nonbusiness entity or nonprofit institution, and often referred to simply as a nonprofit, is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit, as opposed to an entity that operates as a business aiming to generate a profit for its owners. A nonprofit is subject to the non-distribution constraint: any revenues that exceed expenses must be committed to the organization's purpose, not taken by private parties. An array of organizations are nonprofit, including some political organizations, schools, business associations, churches, social clubs, and consumer cooperatives. Nonprofit entities may seek approval from governments to be tax-exempt, and some may also qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions, but an entity may incorporate as a nonprofit entity without having tax-exempt status.

Race to the bottom is a socio-economic phrase to describe either government deregulation of the business environment or reduction in corporate tax rates, in order to attract or retain economic activity in their jurisdictions. While this phenomenon can happen between countries as a result of globalization and free trade, it also can occur within individual countries between their sub-jurisdictions. It may occur when competition increases between geographic areas over a particular sector of trade and production. The effect and intent of these actions is to lower labor rates, cost of business, or other factors over which governments can exert control.

A multinational corporation (MNC) – also called a multinational enterprise (MNE), transnational enterprise (TNE), transnational corporation (TNC), international corporation, or stateless corporation, with subtle but contrasting senses – is a corporate organization that owns and controls the production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country. Control is considered an important aspect of an MNC to distinguish it from international portfolio investment organizations, such as some international mutual funds that invest in corporations abroad simply to diversify financial risks. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation "if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations".

Corporate governance are mechanisms, processes and relations by which corporations are controlled and operated ("governed").

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joint-stock company</span> Business entity owned by shareholders

A joint-stock company (JSC) is a business entity in which shares of the company's stock can be bought and sold by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by their shares. Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.

Tax competition, a form of regulatory competition, exists when governments use reductions in fiscal burdens to encourage the inflow of productive resources or to discourage the exodus of those resources. Often, this means a governmental strategy of attracting foreign direct investment, foreign indirect investment, and high value human resources by minimizing the overall taxation level and/or special tax preferences, creating a comparative advantage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law</span> Body of law that governs businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Banking regulation and supervision</span> Policy framework for credit institutions

Banking regulation and supervision refers to a form of financial regulation which subjects banks to certain requirements, restrictions and guidelines, enforced by a financial regulatory authority generally referred to as banking supervisor, with semantic variations across jurisdictions. By and large, banking regulation and supervision aims at ensuring that banks are safe and sound and at fostering market transparency between banks and the individuals and corporations with whom they conduct business.

Regulatory economics is the application of law by government or regulatory agencies for various economics-related purposes, including remedying market failure, protecting the environment and economic management.

Tax harmonization is generally understood as a process of adjusting tax systems of different jurisdictions in the pursuit of a common policy objective. Tax harmonization involves the removal of tax distortions affecting commodity and factor movements in order to bring about a more efficient allocation of resources within an integrated market. Tax harmonization may serve alternative goals, such as equity or stabilization. It also can be subsumed, along with public expenditure harmonization, under the broader concept of fiscal harmonization. Narrowly defined, tax harmonization guided by this policy goal implies — under simplifying assumptions about other policy instruments and economic structure — convergence toward a more uniform effective tax burden on commodities or on factors of production. Convergence may be attained through the alignment of one or several elements that enter the determination of effective tax rates: the statutory tax rate and tax base, and enforcement practices. Perhaps the most widely accepted argument for harmonization involves convergence in the definition of product value or income for tax purposes. Such tax base harmonization would contribute to transparency for economic decision-making and, thus, to improved efficiency in resource allocation. In particular, a common income tax base for multinational companies operating in different jurisdictions would be instrumental not only in enhancing efficiency, but also in preventing overlaps or gaps in tax claims by different countries. Tax harmonization is an important part of the fiscal integration process. Fiscal integration is the process by which a group of countries agree on taking measures that lead to a higher level of fiscal convergence, the ultimate goal being the formation of a fiscal union. Tax harmonization doesn't automatically lead to the formation of a fiscal union, the second part involving much larger scale project that includes fiscal transfers, a fully harmonized legislation and maybe some supervising institutions, beside a long-run agreement. Starting from the definition given to the fiscal integration process, we can easily say that tax harmonization is the process by which a heterogeneous group of countries, federal states or even local governments agree on setting a minimum and maximum level of their tax rates, including also a higher degree of harmonization of tax legislation, in order to attract foreign investors and to encourage local development and investments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State-corporate crime</span>

State-corporate crime is a concept in criminology for crimes that result from the relationship between the policies of the state and the policies and practices of commercial corporations. The term was coined by Kramer and Michalowski (1990), and redefined by Aulette and Michalowski (1993). These definitions were intended to include all "socially injurious acts" and not merely those that are defined by the local criminal jurisdiction as crime. This is not universally accepted as a valid definition so a less contentious version has been adopted here. As an academic classification, it is distinguished from:

A Company secretary is a senior position in the corporate governance of organizations, playing a crucial role in ensuring adherence to statutory and regulatory requirements. This position is integral to the efficient functioning of corporations, particularly in common law jurisdictions. The Company Secretary serves as a guardian of compliance, a facilitator of communication between the board of directors and other stakeholders, and a custodian of corporate records.

Foreign corporation is a term used in the United States to describe an existing corporation that conducts business in a state or jurisdiction other than where it was originally incorporated. The term applies both to domestic corporations that are incorporated in another state and to corporations that are incorporated in a nation other than the United States. All states require that foreign corporations register with the state before conducting business in the state.

A statutory body or statutory authority is a body set up by law (statute) that is authorised to implement certain legislation on behalf of the relevant country or state, sometimes by being empowered or delegated to set rules in their field. They are typically found in countries which are governed by a British style of parliamentary democracy such as the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries like Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand. They are also found in Israel and elsewhere. Statutory authorities may also be statutory corporations, if created as a body corporate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States corporate law</span> Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

Fund governance refers to a system of checks and balances and work performed by the governing body (board) of an investment fund to ensure that the fund is operated not only in accordance with law, but also in the best interests of the fund and its investors. The objective of fund governance is to uphold the regulatory principles commonly known as the four pillars of investor protection that are typically promulgated through the investment fund regulation applicable in the jurisdiction of the fund. These principles vary by jurisdiction and in the US, the 1940 Act generally ensure that: (i) The investment fund will be managed in accordance with the fund's investment objectives, (ii) The assets of the investment fund will be kept safe, (iii) When investors redeem they will get their pro rata share of the investment fund's assets, (iv) The investment fund will be managed for the benefit of the fund's shareholders and not its service providers.

The California effect is the shift of consumer, environmental and other regulations in the direction of political jurisdictions with stricter regulatory standards. The name is derived from the spread of some advanced environmental regulatory standards that were originally adopted by the U.S. state of California and eventually adopted in other states. This spread is supported by large corporations, which stand to gain as they have the resources necessary to deal with the regulations, unlike their smaller competitors. This process is the opposite of the Delaware effect; this is simply the race to the bottom in which different countries are simply reducing their regulatory burden to attract more of the businesses into their jurisdiction. The assumption behind the Delaware effect is that in the competitive regulatory environment, governments have to remove their regulatory barriers to allow easier functioning of their corporations and to attract new companies to establish their business.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global minimum corporate tax rate</span> Proposed international tax scheme

The global minimum corporate tax rate, or simply the global minimum tax, is a minimum rate of tax on corporate income internationally agreed upon and accepted by individual jurisdictions in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. Each country would be eligible for a share of revenue generated by the tax. The aim is to reduce tax competition between countries and discourage multinational corporations (MNC) from profit shifting that avoids taxes.

References

General
Corporate law
Labour law