ESPM Final Essay 2
Lauren Butler
ESPM 60
Final Essay #2
Command-and-Control Regulation
Since the 1980s, command-and-control, or direct, regulation as been criticized as a policy approach. Still, it is so dominant in our governing because the system is heavily entrenched in our legal system and would be a big cost to change, and there does not appear to be other equally legitimate ways to ensure a trustworthy environmental performance that will produce guaranteed results (Lecture 19). Many policy-makers see a change in this system scientifically unwise. Four main shortcomings of direct regulation are that it is administratively too complex and burdensome, the system employs end-of-pipe pollution management, regulation is static and difficult to update, and the EPA in many cases is a poor functioning silo-style organization. Because direct regulation is too complex and burdensome it takes many years to generate a law, so the time between the period when the law is drafted, enforced, and results are seen could last many years or decades. End-of-pipe pollution management is a problem focuses on the prevention of pollution, in doing this government ignores the industrial systems that produce pollution, permitting them to persist. Because regulation is static and not easily updated, there is no incentive for industry players to be more creative with their methods of meeting government standards, which lead to more industry evasion than cooperation. With EPA being so poor functioning in direct regulation, the different compartments working side-by-side instead of collaboratively with each other, they miss the importance of their work. They focus more on the amount of action they take rather than the environmental improvement seen. An environmental frame that characterizes direct regulation is the “trustworthy” frame. There is an expectation for industry to evade governmental control. Government officials feel that direct regulation is the only legitimate way to ensure a trustworthy
ESPM 60
Final Essay #2
Command-and-Control Regulation
Since the 1980s, command-and-control, or direct, regulation as been criticized as a policy approach. Still, it is so dominant in our governing because the system is heavily entrenched in our legal system and would be a big cost to change, and there does not appear to be other equally legitimate ways to ensure a trustworthy environmental performance that will produce guaranteed results (Lecture 19). Many policy-makers see a change in this system scientifically unwise. Four main shortcomings of direct regulation are that it is administratively too complex and burdensome, the system employs end-of-pipe pollution management, regulation is static and difficult to update, and the EPA in many cases is a poor functioning silo-style organization. Because direct regulation is too complex and burdensome it takes many years to generate a law, so the time between the period when the law is drafted, enforced, and results are seen could last many years or decades. End-of-pipe pollution management is a problem focuses on the prevention of pollution, in doing this government ignores the industrial systems that produce pollution, permitting them to persist. Because regulation is static and not easily updated, there is no incentive for industry players to be more creative with their methods of meeting government standards, which lead to more industry evasion than cooperation. With EPA being so poor functioning in direct regulation, the different compartments working side-by-side instead of collaboratively with each other, they miss the importance of their work. They focus more on the amount of action they take rather than the environmental improvement seen. An environmental frame that characterizes direct regulation is the “trustworthy” frame. There is an expectation for industry to evade governmental control. Government officials feel that direct regulation is the only legitimate way to ensure a trustworthy