Talk:Regulatory capture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this article violates Neutral Point of View, and is not that informative.

There is a stub under Capture that's better and should be brought over and expanded:

In public choice theory and political science, capture is said to occur when bureaucrats or politicians, who are supposed be acting in the public interest, end up acting systematically to favor particular vested interests. The theory of capture is associated with nobel laureate economist George Stigler, one of its main developers.

Public choice theory holds that capture is inevitable, because vested interests have a concentrated financial stake in the outcomes of political decisions, thus ensuring that they will find means—direct or indirect—to capture decision makers.

While this inevitablist application of rational choice theory appears to be excessively pessimistic about government, capture is a commonly observable phenomenon.

I think examples are important. One might provide examples without violating neutrality by framing the examples in terms of who alleged regulatory capture and why, and perhaps providing discussion on hypotheses other than capture that could result in the appearance of capture. An example might be the practice of hiring from regulatory bodies: sure, it may look like it "proves" capture by showing that regulators were using their posts to prepare themselves for more lucrative private work, but it may also reflect the fact that regulated industries need regulatory experts and hire the expertise from the best source -- the industry's actual regulator.

re: A Modern Example

Is this really the appropriate place for promoting that screwball free wi-fi agenda? I'm deleting it. Come up with examples that have a more-than-tenuous relation to regulatory capture, and keep personal agendas out of it.

As if to illustrate the ideological motivation of Wikipedia article maintainers, the following message was sent to me after I pointed out the ridiculous insertion of "free wi-fi" agenda propaganda in this article:

Section deletion

Re: Regulatory capture

Section deletion without explanation can be considered vandalism.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism.

Good luck with your "free wi-fi" agenda, but be aware that you are actively turning Wikipedia into a grotesque sideshow. A reader comes to Wikipedia to learn more about regulatory capture and is instead greeted with pseudo-intellectual leftwing rhetoric about free wi-fi and net neutrality. Why not throw in "examples" about DRM and copyright law? It couldn't make this article any more clearly e-Leftist bullshit. Why not fire off intimidating messages to people who point this out?

As much as I don't like the tone above, I must agree with this anonymous user that this article carries an agenda pretty heavily. Certainly illustrive examples are helpful in encyclopedic articles, but it is not appropriate to go into so much detail on the example. There is more on net neutrality than on regulatory capture. Furthermore, I don't see the need for this specific example, given that there are already good examples above in the Department of Agriculture, etc.

As much as net neutrality seems like a good cause, this is not the proper format for it's promotion and I can't help but see its description here as a POV promotion of net neutrality.

Since I am not the only one who thinks this, I'm going to delete the section and paste it here for someone who can go through and figure out what, if any, of it is necessary for this article, from a neutral point of view.

[edit] Current concerns

---

Of particular concern in the early 21st century is the possible regulation of the internet with respect to net neutrality. Various proposals have been made by some economic interests to prohibit charges to content originators by carriers (internet service providers) based upon bandwidth consumption (the amount of traffic generated) and to prohibit discrimination in the level of service provided. Carriers argue that since they must finance the capital costs of improved delivery mechanisms, that the providers of material should bear the cost of delivery. Content providers argue that the cost is paid for by the consumer through expensive cable, digital subscriber line, and broadband wireless fees, with the principal argument being centered about favoritism and discrimination, in that certain delivery services may be connected financially to content providers, whom the carriers could then favor while discriminating against outside providers. The most effective form of discrimination would be for the carriers to provide slower service to uncooperative outside providers (providers not owned by or paying a toll to the carrier).

The danger of any regulatory action to enforce net neutrality is that the regulatory process would become captured by one or even both of the factions involved, who could then apply pressure upon the regulators by their influence upon the political process. Who would remain without significant influence in this process would be the consumers, who (it is argued) are at present becoming quite powerful in many locales by their ability to change providers (although generally only within a duopoly of cable TV internet or telephone DSL services). The ease of switching has gradually increased since third party e-mail services, free home pages in social networks, and customer controlled personal web sites allow the switch with few side effects, such as the need to notify all correspondents of a new address and additional access methods such as access by radio (WiFi) and satellite methods are gradually improving. The argument against regulation centers upon the consumer's ability to switch (as a countervailing force) and the likelihood of regulatory capture by the politically and financially powerful non-consumer interests involved.

Whether the industry has competition or is a monopoly is a key factual question underpinning the arguments over the danger of regulatory capture; the power which could be exerted through regulatory capture is generally already possessed by a monopoly.

-Dwinetsk 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)