New Economics Papers
on Law and Economics
Issue of 2009‒03‒28
two papers chosen by
Jeong-Joon Lee, Towson University

  1. Responsive Regulation: Achieving the Right Balance Between Persuasion and Penalisation By Ojo, Marianne
  2. Natural Resources and Reforms By Amin, Mohammad; Djankov, Simeon

  1. By: Ojo, Marianne
    Abstract: This paper not only considers the regulatory challenges faced by regulators, but also the potential of responsive regulation and particularly meta regulation to address these challenges. It explores developments which have necessitated a change from the traditional form of regulation, that is, command and control regulation to more responsive hybrids of regulation. Even though traditional regulation has its advantages, its inability to address the demands of changing business environments has resulted in the adoption of more flexible forms of regulation such as risk based regulation and responsive regulation. Whilst the potential of responsive regulation is considered, the complexities and challenges faced by the regulator in identifying and assessing risk, solutions aimed at countering problems of risk regulation, along with the problems arising from different perceptions of risk will be addressed only briefly.
    Keywords: Self regulation; co regulation; enforced self regulation; meta regulation; responsive regulation; risk
    JEL: K2
    Date: 2009–03–19
  2. By: Amin, Mohammad; Djankov, Simeon
    Abstract: We use a sample of 133 countries to investigate the link between the abundance of natural resources and micro-economic reforms. Previous studies suggest that natural resource abundance gives rise to governments that are less accountable to the public, states that are oligarchic, and that it leads to the erosion of social capital. These factors are likely to hamper economic reforms. We test this hypothesis using data on microeconomic reforms from the World Bank’s Doing Business database. The results provide a robust support for the "resource curse" view: a move from the 75th percentile to the 25th percentile on resource abundance equals 10.9 percentage points more reform, a large effect given that the mean probability of reform in the sample is 57.1%.
    Keywords: Natural resources; Reform; Regulation
    JEL: K2 L51
    Date: 2009–03

This issue is ©2009 by Jeong-Joon Lee. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.