Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: Institutional dynamics in human research oversight

Sydney Halpern

Regulation & Governance, 2008, vol. 2, issue 1, 85-102

Abstract: New governance scholars see hybrid regulation as a means for achieving regulatory flexibility and responsiveness. The US system for overseeing human subjects research embodies three dimensions of hybridity: it brings together governmental and non‐governmental controls; it combines central and local authority; and it engages a multiplicity of policy actors. Yet this system became rigid 20 years into its development. Sources of rigidity included shifts in the regulatory environment, temporal constriction in the range policy participants, and risk aversion on the part of non‐governmental institutions charged with implementing federally mandated controls. This article explores the implications of these institutional dynamics for the relationship between hybridity and regulatory responsiveness. It also examines possibilities for renewed flexibility generated by the recent advent of both accreditation and regulatory innovation by university research administrators.

Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00032.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:wly:reggov:v:2:y:2008:i:1:p:85-102

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Regulation & Governance from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().