DEREGULATION: THE PRINCIPAL INCONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS1

Warren Samuels and James D. Shaffer

Review of Policy Research, 1982, vol. 1, issue 3, 463-469

Abstract: The authors suggest that most arguments in favor of deregulation are really double‐edged swords which render the debate over deregulation inconclusive at best. They challenge the following positions as inconclusive: (1) that deregulation per se is good; (2) that it protects rights; (3) that deregulation removes uncertainties concerning the marketplace; (4) that it reduces “nitpicking” and coercive regulation; (5) that deregulation promotes greater productivity and efficiency; (6) that it combats inflation; (7) that regulations often cannot be justified by benefits over costs; and (8) there are serious problems of attaining optimum levels of regulation. Special interest groups in favor of deregulation are seen to bear a remarkable resemblance to groups opposed to deregulation.

Date: 1982
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00450.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:revpol:v:1:y:1982:i:3:p:463-469

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/subs.asp?ref=1541-132x

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Policy Research is currently edited by Christopher Gore

More articles in Review of Policy Research from Policy Studies Organization Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().