This article studies the diffusion of the main institutional feature of regulatory capitalism, namely, independent regulatory agencies. While only a few such authorities existed in Europe in the early 1980s, by the end of the twentieth century they had spread impressively across countries and sectors. The analysis finds that three classes of factors (bottom-up, top-down, and horizontal) explain this trend. First, the establishment of independent regulatory agencies was an attempt to improve credible commitment capacity when liberalizing and privatizing utilities and to alleviate the political uncertainty problem, namely, the risk to a government that its policies will be changed when it loses power. Second, Europeanization favored the creation of independent regulators. Third, individual decisions were interdependent, as governments were influenced by the decisions of others in an emulation process where the symbolic properties of independent regulators mattered more than the functions they performed.
Bortolotti, Bernardo, Juliet D’Souza, Marcella Fantini, and William L. Megginson. 2002. Privatization and the sources of performance improvement in the global telecommunications industry. Telecommunications Policy26:243-268.
2.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Bradford S. Jones. 2004. Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Boylaud, Olivier, and Giuseppe Nicoletti. 2000. Regulation, market structure and performance in telecommunications. Economic Department Working Papers no. 237 ECO/WKP(2000)10. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
4.
Braun, Dietmar, and Fabrizio Gilardi. 2005. Taking “Galton’s Problem” seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, HI.
5.
Carruth, Alan, Andy Dickerson, and Andrew Henley. 2000. What do we know about investment under uncertainty?Journal of Economic Surveys14 (2): 119-153.
6.
Commission of the European Communities. 1999. Fifth report on the implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package. COM(1999)537. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
7.
Commission of the European Communities. 2002. Eighth report on the implementation of the Telecommunication Regulatory Package. COM(2002)695. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
8.
de Figueiredo, Rui J. P.2002. Electoral competition, political uncertainty, and policy insulation. American Political Science Review96 (2): 321-333.
9.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1991. The ironcage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Franzese, Robert J.2002. Macroeconomic policies of developed democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Frederick, Shane, George Loewenstein, and Ted O’Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature40:351-401.
12.
Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2004. Delegation in the regulatory state: Origins and diffusion of independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Lausanne, Switzerland.
13.
Hannan, Michael T., and Glenn R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
Henisz, Witold J.2002. The institutional environment for infrastructure investment. Industrial and Corporate Change11 (2): 355-389.
15.
Keefer, Philip, and David Stasavage. 2003. The limits of delegation: Veto players, central bank independence, and the credibility of monetary policy. American Political Science Review97 (3): 407-423.
16.
Knill, Christoph, and Dirk Lehmkuhl. 2002. The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: Three Europeanisation mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research41:255-280.
17.
Levi-Faur, David. 2003. The politics of liberalisation: Privatisation and regulation-for-competition in Europe’s and Latin America’s telecoms and electricity industries. European Journal of Political Research42:705-740.
18.
Levi-Faur, David. 2004. On the “net impact” of Europeanization: The EU’s telecoms and electricity regimes between the global and the national. Comparative Political Studies37 (1): 3-29.
19.
Levi-Faur, David. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598:12-32.
20.
Levi-Faur, David, and Jacint Jordana. 2005. Preface: The making of a new regulatory order. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598:6-9.
21.
Levy, Brian, and Pablo T. Spiller. 1994. The institutional foundations of regulatory commitment: A comparative analysis of telecommunications regulation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization10 (2): 201-246.
22.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1997. From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy17 (2): 139-167.
23.
Majone, Giandomenico. 2001. Nonmajoritarian institutions and the limits of democratic governance: A political transaction-cost approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics157:57-78.
24.
McNamara, Kathleen R.2002. Rational fictions: Central bank independence and the social logic of delegation. West European Politics25 (1): 47-76.
25.
Meier, Kenneth J.1985. Regulation: Politics, bureaucracy, and economics. New York: St. Martin’s.
26.
Meyer, John W.1994. Rationalized environments. In Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism, ed. W. R. Scott and J. W. Meyer.London: Sage.
27.
Meyer, John W., John Boli, and George M. Thomas. 1994. Ontology and rationalization in the Western cultural account. In Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism, ed. W. R. Scott and J. W. Meyer.London: Sage.
28.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83 (2): 340-363.
29.
Moe, Terry M.1990. Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization6 (special issue): 213-253.
30.
Moe, Terry M.1995. The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond, ed. O. E. Williamson.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast. 1994. Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. In Monetary and fiscal policy, vol. 1, Credibility, ed. T. Persson and G. Tabeliini.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Simmons, Beth A., and Zachary Elkins. 2004. The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review98 (1): 171-189.
33.
Spiller, Pablo T.1993. Institutions and regulatory commitment in utilities’ privatization. Industrial and Corporate Change2 (3): 387-450.
34.
Steiner, Faye. 2000. Regulation, industry structure and performance in the electricity supply industry. Economics Department Working Papers no. 238, ECO/WKP(2000)11. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
35.
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Tversky, Amos, and Richard H. Tahler. 1990. Anomalies: Preference reversals. Journal of Economic Perspectives4 (2): 201-211.
37.
Woldendorp, Jaap, Hans Keman, and Ian Budge. 2000. Party government in 48 democracies: Composition— Duration—Personnel. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
