This paper evaluates how ‘regulatory governance’ has evolved as a conceptual framework among the research community and practitioners in the utilities sector literature, what its essential dimensions are, and how it impacts sectoral performance. A thematic and methodological review of 116 relevant articles in the energy and telecommunications domains has been undertaken to create a firm foundation for the advancement of knowledge by (i) uncovering areas where research is required, (ii) identifying areas where a plethora of academic research exists and closing them, and (iii) facilitating the development of new theories. The reviews of the articles helped in the identification of four and five vital themes in the energy and telecommunications domains, respectively, while the methodological review revealed the popular techniques under qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research designs – a piece of useful information for future research. The study highlights essential dimensions of regulatory governance and recommends enhanced use of a qualitative approach for gaining insights into social issues, native viewpoints of policy practitioners, and the generation of relevant substantive theories. The study has mapped the micro themes under attributes, mechanisms/instruments (how and why), and outcomes (what) of regulatory governance and recommends enhanced use of grounded theory, phenomenology, and an action research approach.
AminM.BernellD. (2018). Power sector reform in Afghanistan: Barriers to achieving universal access to electricity. Energy Policy, 123, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.010
BiswasK.MuthukkumarasamyV. (2017). Quantitative research design to evaluate learning platforms and learning methods for cyber-security courses. In Australian association for Environmental Education (AAEE) conference, pp. 793–799.
6.
CairneyP. (2015). How can policy theory have an impact on policymaking? The role of theory-led academic–practitioner discussions. Teaching Public Administration, 33(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739414532284
7.
CallegariC.SzkloA.SchaefferR. (2018). Cost overruns and delays in energy megaprojects: How big is big enough?Energy Policy, 114, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.059
8.
CambiniC.FranziD. (2013). Independent regulatory agencies and rules harmonization for the electricity sector and renewables in the Mediterranean region. Energy Policy, 60, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.078
9.
CarlessT. S.RedusK.DrydenR. (2021). Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief networks. Energy Policy, 159, Article 112549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112549
ChengK. (2016). Test of the mediating effects of regulatory decision tools in the communications regulator. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2-3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.12.001
12.
CherryB. A. (2015). Technology transitions within telecommunications networks: Lessons from U.S. vs. Canadian policy experimentation under federalism. Telecommunications Policy, 39(6), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.02.001
13.
CherryB. A.WildmanS. S. (1999). Conceptualizing universal service: Definitions, context, social process, and politics. In Making universal service policy (pp. 3–12). Routledge.
14.
ChouY.LiuK. (2006). Paradoxical impact of asymmetric regulation in Taiwan's telecommunications industry: Restriction and rent seeking. Telecommunications Policy, 30(3-4), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2005.06.016
15.
DastanS. A. (2011). Analysing success of regulatory policy transfers: Evidence from Turkish energy markets. Energy Policy, 39(12), 8116–8124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.006
16.
de CarvalhoJ. F.MercedesS. S. P.SauerI. L. (2010). Precautionary principle, economic and energy systems and social equity. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5399–5402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.020
17.
de OliveiraR. G.TolmasquimM. T. (2004). Regulatory performance analysis case study: Britain's electricity industry. Energy Policy, 32(11), 1261–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(03)00093-4
18.
DragoC.GattoA. (2022). Policy, regulation effectiveness, and sustainability in the energy sector: A worldwide interval-based composite indicator. Energy Policy, 167, Article 112889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112889
EliaV.GnoniM. G.TorneseF. (2019). Exploring the benefits of productization in the utilities sector. Sustainability, 11(20), 5864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205864
22.
Energy Policy. (2022). The international journal of the political, economic, planning, environmental and social aspects of energy. Energy Policy. Retrieved from. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-policy
23.
FlorêncioP. (2016). The Brazilian 2010 oil regulatory framework and its crowding-out investment effects. Energy Policy, 98, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.038
24.
FrenchR. D. (2009). Governance and game theory: When do franchise auctions induce firms to overbid?Telecommunications Policy, 33(3-4), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2008.12.005
25.
FuentesR.SenguptaA. (2020). Using insurance to manage reliability in the distributed electricity sector: Insights from an agent-based model. Energy Policy, 139, Article 111251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111251
GhoshR.KathuriaV. (2016). The effect of regulatory governance on efficiency of thermal power generation in India: A stochastic frontier analysis. Energy Policy, 89, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.011
28.
GlachantJ.DuboisU.PerezY. (2008). Deregulating with no regulator: Is the German electricity transmission regime institutionally correct?Energy Policy, 36(5), 1600–1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.032
29.
Gómez-BarrosoJ. L.FeijóoC. (2010). A conceptual framework for public-private interplay in the telecommunications sector. Telecommunications Policy, 34(9), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.01.001
30.
GutierrezL. H.BergS. (2000). Telecommunications liberalization and regulatory governance: Lessons from Latin America. Telecommunications Policy, 24(10-11), 865–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-5961(00)00069-0
HendrenK.LuoQ. E.PandeyS. K. (2018). The State of mixed methods research in public administration and public Policy. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12981
33.
HolburnG. L. (2012). Assessing and managing regulatory risk in renewable energy: Contrasts between Canada and the United States. Energy Policy, 45, 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.017
34.
JamasbT.PollittM. (2003). International benchmarking and regulation: An application to European electricity distribution utilities. Energy Policy, 31(15), 1609–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(02)00226-4
JayakarK.MartinB. (2012). Regulatory governance in African telecommunications: Testing the resource curse hypothesis. Telecommunications Policy, 36(9), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.06.017
37.
KathuriaV. (2021). Impact of institutional reforms on the performance of distribution utilities in India–A dynamic panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 158, Article 112560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112560
38.
KennedyD. (2002). Regulatory reform and market development in power sectors of transition economies: The case of Kazakhstan. Energy Policy, 30(3), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(01)00085-4
KrämerJ.SchnurrD. (2014). A unified framework for open access regulation of telecommunications infrastructure: Review of the economic literature and policy guidelines. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), 1160–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.06.006
43.
KumarS. (2022). Taking root: Independent Regulatory Agency model of regulation in Indian electricity sector. Energy Policy, 164, Article 112863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112863
44.
Levi-FaurD. (2011). Handbook on the politics of regulation. Edward Elgar.
45.
LevyB.SpillerP. (Eds.), (1996). Regulations, institutions, and commitment: Comparative studies of telecommunications. Cambridge University Press.
46.
LiuC. (2016). Sustainability of rural informatization programs in developing countries: A case study of China׳s Sichuan province. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.08.007
47.
LiuC. (2017). An evaluation of China's evolving broadband policy: An ecosystem’s perspective. Telecommunications Policy, 41(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.003
48.
MahD. N.van der VleutenJ. M.IpJ. C.HillsP. R. (2012). Governing the transition of socio-technical systems: A case study of the development of smart grids in Korea. Energy Policy, 45, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.005
49.
MakkonenM.PätäriS.JantunenA.ViljainenS. (2012). Competition in the European electricity markets – Outcomes of a Delphi study. Energy Policy, 44, 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.014
50.
MallettR.Hagen-ZankerJ.SlaterR.DuvendackM. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342
MenonM. E. (2010). The effect of career counsellors on the decision to pursue higher education: A mixed‐methods investigation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2010.512079
53.
MishraB.KumarA. (2021). How does regulatory framework impact sectoral performance? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. In press. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2021-0398
54.
MohamadN. (2014). Telecommunications reform and efficiency performance: Do good institutions matter?Telecommunications Policy, 38(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.04.006
55.
MohsinM.HanifI.Taghizadeh-HesaryF.AbbasQ.IqbalW. (2021). Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: A DEA-based way forward for clean power development. Energy Policy, 149, Article 112052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112052
56.
NagayamaH. (2010). Impacts on investments and transmission/distribution loss through power sector reforms. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3453–3467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.019
57.
NiestenE. (2010). Network investments and the integration of distributed generation: Regulatory recommendations for the Dutch electricity industry. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4355–4362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.063
OjoT. (2016). Global agenda and ICT4D in Africa: Constraints of localizing ‘universal norm. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.05.002
60.
PalladinoN. (2021). The role of epistemic communities in the “constitutionalization” of internet governance: The example of the European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), Article 102149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102149
61.
PeciA.D’AssunçãoM. L.HolperinM. M.de SouzaC. F. (2017). Regulation inside government: The challenges of regulating a government-owned utility. Utilities Policy, 49, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.007
62.
PolemisM. L. (2016). New evidence on the impact of structural reforms on electricity sector performance. Energy Policy, 92, 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.032
63.
PonzoR.DynerI.ArangoS.LarsenE. R. (2011). Regulation and development of the Argentinean gas market. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.009
64.
RaoN. D. (2013). Distributional impacts of climate change mitigation in Indian electricity: The influence of governance. Energy Policy, 61, 1344–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.103
65.
RodrikD. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W. W. Norton & Company.
66.
ShelanskiH. A. (2002). From sector-specific regulation to antitrust law for US telecommunications: The prospects for transition. Telecommunications Policy, 26(5-6), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-5961(02)00012-5
67.
SrivastavaG.KathuriaV. (2020). Impact of corporate governance norms on the performance of Indian utilities. Energy Policy, 140, Article 111414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111414
SutherlandE. (2013). Independence and the regulatory state—Telecommunications in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Telecommunications Policy, 37(11), 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.02.002
UllahK.ArentsenM. J.LovettJ. C. (2017). Institutional determinants of power sector reform in Pakistan. Energy Policy, 102, 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.019
van GorpA.MaitlandC. (2009). Comparative research on regional regulators’ associations: A theory-driven path for progress. Telecommunications Policy, 33(1-2), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2008.10.006
75.
WavermanL.KoutroumpisP. (2011). Benchmarking telecoms regulation – The Telecommunications Regulatory Governance Index (TRGI). Telecommunications Policy, 35(5), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.03.006
76.
WebsterJ.WatsonR. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2). xiii–xxiii. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132319
77.
WilsonP.RushR.HusseyS.PuckeringC.SimF.AllelyC. S.DokuP.McConnachieA.GillbergC. (2012). How evidence-based is an 'evidence-based parenting program'? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-130
78.
WinterJ. S.DavidsonE. (2022). Harmonizing regulatory regimes for the governance of patient-generated health data. Telecommunications Policy, 46(5), Article 102285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102285
79.
WooC.ChengY.LawA.ZarnikauJ.HoS.LeungH. (2015). Consumer support for a public utilities commission in Hong Kong. Energy Policy, 76, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.011
XiaJ. (2011). The third-generation-mobile (3G) policy and deployment in China: Current status, challenges, and prospects. Telecommunications Policy, 35(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.12.008
82.
XiaJ. (2012). Competition and regulation in China’s 3G/4G mobile communications industry—Institutions, governance, and telecom SOEs. Telecommunications Policy, 36(7), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.11.026
83.
XiaJ. (2017). China’s telecommunications evolution, institutions, and policy issues on the eve of 5G: A two-decade retrospect and prospect. Telecommunications Policy, 41(10), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.11.003
84.
XiaJ.LuT. (2008). Bridging the digital divide for rural communities: The case of China. Telecommunications Policy, 32(9-10), 686–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2008.07.006
85.
YangA.LeeD.HwangJ.ShinJ. (2013). The influence of regulations on the efficiency of telecommunications operators: A meta-frontier analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 37(11), 1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.02.004
86.
YeR.ZhouY.ChenJ.TuK. (2021). Natural gas security evaluation from a supply vs. demand perspective: A quantitative application of four A’s. Energy Policy, 156, Article 112425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112425
YuL.BergS.GuoQ. (2004). Market performance of Chinese telecommunications: New regulatory policies. Telecommunications Policy, 28(9-10), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2004.02.002
89.
ZamanR.BrudermannT.KumarS.IslamN. (2018). A multi-criteria analysis of coal-based power generation in Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 116, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.053
90.
ZhangH. (2019). Antinomic policymaking under the fragmented authoritarianism: Regulating China's electricity sector through the energy-climate-environment dimension. Energy Policy, 128, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.003
91.
ZhangL.QinQ.WeiY. (2019). China’s distributed energy policies: Evolution, instruments and recommendation. Energy Policy, 125, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.028
