This article presents a methodology for quantifying the costs of dysfunctional environmental regulation faced by the Australian rail industry and derives indicative lessons for best practice with respect to measuring regulatory burden. By drawing on results from a recent benchmarking analysis, the suitability of the methodology is assessed. The study suggests that the methodology presented could be applied to other industries seeking to measure the policy-inefficient government regulatory burden. Further methodological improvements are also recommended.
ArrowK.J.CropperM.L.EadsG.C.HahnR.W.LaveL.B.NollR.G.PortneyP.R.RussellM.SchmalenseeR.SmithV.K. and StavinsR.N. (1996) “Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?”, Science, 272: 221–222.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2002) Environmental protection, mining and manufacturing industries (CAT.No.4603.0). Canberra: ABS.
3.
CameronA.C. and TrivediP.K. (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ChambersR.G. (1998) Applied production analysis: A dual approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ConradK. (2002) “Computable general equilibrium models in environmental and resource Economics”, In TietenbergT. and FolmerH. (eds), The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2002/2003. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 66–114.
6.
Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) (2009) Victorian regulatory change measurement manual. Melbourne: DTF.
7.
Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) (2011) Victorian guide to regulation. Melbourne: DTF.
8.
European Commission (EC) (2006) Measuring administrative costs and reducing administrative burdens in the European Union. Brussels: EU. Commission Working Document 691.
9.
European Commission (EC) (2009a) Action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the EU (Commission October 2009 Communication 544). Brussels: EU.
10.
European Commission (EC) (2009b) EU project baseline measurement and reduction of administrative costs (Final Report on Modules 3&4 for Environmental Priority area). Brussels: EU.
11.
HainesF. (2006) “Regulatory failures and regulatory solutions: A characteristic analysis of meta-regulation”. Proceedings Annual Meeting, Law and Society Association. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
12.
HemphillT.A. (1992) “Self-regulating Industry Behaviour: Antitrust Limitations and Trade Association Codes of Conduct”, Journal of Business Ethics, 11(12): 915–920.
13.
JaffeA.B.PetersonS.R.PortneyP.R. and StavinsR.N. (1995) “Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?”, Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1): 132–163.
14.
LayardR. and GlaisterS. (1994) Cost benefit analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PizerW.A. and KoppR. (2003) Calculating the costs of environmental regulation. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 03–06.
23.
Productivity Commission (PC) (2006) Road and Rail Infrastructure and Pricing (Productivity Commission Research Report). Canberra: PC.
24.
Productivity Commission (PC) (2007) Performance benchmarking of Australian business regulation: Stage 1 (Productivity Commission Research Report). Melbourne: PC.
25.
Productivity Commission (PC) (2008) Performance benchmarking of Australian business regulation: Quantity and quality (Productivity Commission Research Report). Melbourne: PC.
26.
Ramboll Management (2006) International Benchmark of Administrative Burdens Related to Selected EC Directives in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark –Methodological Findings. Berlin. Retrieved from www.administrative-burdens.com.
27.
ReveszR.L. and LivermoreM.A. (2008) Retaking rationality: How cost–benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
RoseA. (1983) “Modeling the Macroeconomic Impact of Air Pollution Abatement”, Journal of Regulatory Science, 23(4): 441–459.
29.
RutledgeG.L. and VoganC.R. (1994) “Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditures 1972–92”, Survey of Current Business, 74(5): 36–49.
30.
Standard Cost Model Network (2005a) The International SCM Manual: Measuring and reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Retrieved from www.administrative-burdens.com/.
31.
Standard Cost Model Network (2005b) Benchmark report on EU transport legislation; Poland & the Netherlands, December 2005. Retrieved from www.administrative-burdens.com/.
32.
Statistics Canada (2008) Environmental protection expenditure in the business sector – 2006, No. 16 F006X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
33.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office (2005) Measuring administrative costs: UK Standard Cost Model manual. London: Cabinet Office.
34.
United States Census Bureau (2008) Pollution abatement costs and expenditure 2005. Washington D.C.: USCB.
35.
URS Corporation (2008) Environmental Protection Expenditure Survey by Industry, Report prepared for Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London: URS.
36.
Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission (2009) A sustainable future for Victoria: Getting environmental regulation right (Final report). Melbourne: VCEC.
37.
Von Der HeidtT.RyanR.CharlesM.B.CollierC. and HughesB. (2008) An Inventory of Environmental Regulation Pertaining to Rail in Australia. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
38.
Von Der HeidtT.RyanR.CharlesM.B.CollierC.HughesB.GeeD. and ZitoR. (2009) Stakeholder Views on Rail Environmental in Australia. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
39.
Von Der HeidtT.WangJ. and CharlesM.B. (2010) “A Method for Measuring Excessive Environmental Regulatory Burden in the Australian Rail Industry”, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 11(4): 361–381.
40.
WegrichK. (2009) The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion. London School of Economics and Political Science Discussion Paper No.52. London: London School of Economics.
