Responsive Regulation

Abstract

Abstract The Basic Idea of Responsive Regulation is that Governments Should Be Re- sponsive to the conduct of those they seek to regulate in deciding whether a more or less interventionist response is needed (Ayres and Braithwaite 1992). In particular, law enforcers should be responsive to how effectively citizens or corporations are regulating themselves before deciding whether to escalate intervention. Responsive regulation is not only something governments can do; private actors in civil society can also regulate responsively, indeed, even regulate governments responsively (Gunningham and Grabosky 1998). Regulatory formalism is the important contrast to responsive regulation. The formalist says to define in advance which problems require which response and write rules to mandate those responses. The formalist might say, for example, that armed robbery is a very serious evil. Therefore it should always be dealt with by taking it to court, and if guilt is proven, the offender must go to jail. Responsive regulation requires us to challenge such a presumption; if the offender is responding to the detection of her wrongdoing by turning around her life, kicking a heroin habit, helping victims, and voluntarily working for a community group “to make up for the harm she has done to the community,” then the responsive regulator of armed robbery will say no to the jail option.