Framing disruption: how a regulatory capture frame legitimized the deregulation of Boston’s ride-for-hire industry
Framing disruption: how a regulatory capture frame legitimized the deregulation of Boston’s ride-for-hire industry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ser/mwab020
复制
发表时间：
2021-05
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Laura Adler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Laura Adler
长期以来，监管俘获理论一直被用来通过质疑政府监管职能的合法性来证明放松监管的理由。负责监管的政府官员如何接受放松监管？本文在波士顿关于监管交通网络公司（TNCs）的辩论的背景下探讨了这个问题。通过分析媒体报道，我确定了两种类型的框架，出现了利益相关者试图影响跨国公司监管：问题框架旨在塑造出租车行业的解释，而元框架将辩论的焦点从跨国公司转移到监管本身。具体来说，一个调用监管俘获理论的元框架成为核心。补充媒体报道的深入采访，我表明，政府官员并没有反驳捕获帧，而是用这个框架来区分合法和非法的监管。我认为，这些区别是使放松监管议程合法化的核心，因为官员们谴责特定类型的监管，以海岸更广泛的监管类别。这个案例揭示了政府官员如何接受政府阻碍创新的想法，为新的市场格局铺平了道路。
The theory of regulatory capture has long been used to make the case for deregulation by questioning the legitimacy of government’s regulatory function. How do government officials, who are tasked with regulating, embrace deregulation? This article explores that question in the context of Boston’s debate over regulating transportation network companies (TNCs). Analyzing media coverage, I identify two types of frames that emerged as stakeholders attempted to influence TNC regulation: issue frames aimed to shape the interpretation of the ride-for-hire industry, while meta-frames shifted the focus of debate from TNCs to regulation itself. Specifically, a meta-frame invoking the theory of regulatory capture became central. Supplementing media coverage with in-depth interviews, I show that government officials did not refute the capture frame but rather used this frame to draw a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate regulation. I propose that these distinctions are central to legitimizing a deregulatory agenda, as officials condemn specific types of regulation in order to shore up the broader category of regulation. The case sheds light on how the idea of government as an impediment to innovation is embraced by government officials themselves, paving the way for new market configurations.