Editing Deregulation (section)

== Controversy ==
{{See also|Anti-globalization movement|Globalization|Neoliberalism}}

{{undue weight|date=November 2023}}

The deregulation movement of the late 20th century had substantial economic effects and engendered substantial controversy. The movement was based on intellectual perspectives which prescribed substantial scope for market forces, and opposing perspectives have been in play in national and international discourse.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

The movement toward greater reliance on market forces has been closely related to the growth of economic and institutional [[globalization]] between about 1950 and 2010.{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}}

=== For deregulation ===
Many economists have concluded that a trend towards deregulation will increase economic welfare long-term and a sustainable free market system. Regarding the electricity market, contemporary academic Adam Thierer, "The first step toward creating a free market in electricity is to repeal the federal statutes and regulations that hinder electricity competition and [[consumer choice]]."<ref>{{citation
 |url         = http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg1169.cfm
 |title       = A Five-Point Checklist For Successful Electricity Deregulation Legislation
 |first       = Adam D.
 |last        = Thierer
 |publisher   = [[The Heritage Foundation]]
 |issue       = 1169
 |date        = 13 April 1998
 |access-date  = 2009-04-26
 |url-status     = unfit
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20090404155331/http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1169.cfm
 |archive-date = 4 April 2009
}}</ref> This viewpoint stretches back centuries. Classical economist [[Adam Smith]] argued the benefits of deregulation in his 1776 work, ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'':<blockquote>[Without trade restrictions] the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man...is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.... The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty [for which] no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Wealth of Nations|last=Smith|first=Adam|publisher=James Decker|year=1801|location=Paris|pages=96}}</ref></blockquote>Scholars who theorize that deregulation is beneficial to society often cite what is known as the Iron Law of Regulation, which states that all regulation eventually leads to a net loss in social welfare.<ref>{{cite journal |id={{ProQuest|1282085602}} |last1=Green |first1=Kesten |title=Should government force companies to be responsible? |journal=Review - Institute of Public Affairs |location=Melbourne |volume=64 |issue=4 |date=December 2012 |pages=44–45 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Armstrong |first1=J. Scott |last2=Green |first2=Kesten C. |title=Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies |journal=Journal of Business Research |date=October 2013 |volume=66 |issue=10 |pages=1922–1927 |doi=10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.014 |citeseerx=10.1.1.663.508 |s2cid=145059055 }}</ref>

=== Against deregulation ===
Critics of [[economic liberalization]] and deregulation cite the benefits of regulation, and believe that certain regulations do not distort markets and allow companies to continue to be [[Competition (economics)|competitive]], or according to some, grow in competition.<ref name="Cali Ellis te Velde 2008">{{cite book |last1=Cali |first1=Massimiliano |last2=Ellis |first2=Karen |last3=te Velde |first3=Dirk Willem |title=The contribution of services to development and the role of trade liberalisation and regulation |date=2008 |publisher=Overseas Development Institute |location=London |isbn=978-0-85003-892-7 |url=https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94965/wp298.pdf }}{{page needed|date=December 2022}}</ref> Much as the state plays an important role through issues such as [[property rights]], appropriate regulation is argued by some to be "crucial to realise the benefits of service liberalisation".<ref name="Cali Ellis te Velde 2008"/>

Critics of deregulation often cite the need of regulation in order to:<ref name="Cali Ellis te Velde 2008"/>

* create a level playing field and ensure [[Competition law|competition]] (e.g., by ensuring new energy providers have competitive access to the national grid);
* maintain [[Quality management system|quality standards for services]] (e.g., by specifying qualification requirements for service providers);
* [[Consumer protection|protect consumers]] (e.g. from fraud);
* ensure sufficient provision of information (e.g., about the features of [[Comparison shopping website|competing services]]);
* prevent [[environmental degradation]] (e.g., arising from high levels of tourist development);
* guarantee wide [[Equity (economics)|access to services]] (e.g., ensuring poorer areas where profit margins are lower are also provided with electricity and health services); and,
* prevent [[Financial crisis|financial instability]] and protect consumer savings from excessive risk-taking by financial institutions.

Sharon Beder, a writer with PR Watch, wrote "Electricity deregulation was supposed to bring cheaper electricity prices and more choice of suppliers to householders. Instead it has brought wildly volatile wholesale prices and undermined the reliability of the electricity supply."<ref>{{citation
 |url=http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html 
 |title=The Electricity Deregulation Con Game 
 |first=Sharon 
 |last=Beder 
 |journal=[[PR Watch]] 
 |volume=10 
 |issue=3; 3rd quarter 2003 
 |access-date=26 April 2009 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090324051222/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html 
 |archive-date=24 March 2009 
}}</ref>

[[William K. Black]] says that inappropriate deregulation helped create a criminogenic environment in the [[Savings and loan association|savings and loan industry]], which attracted opportunistic [[control fraud]]s like [[Charles Keating]], whose massive political campaign contributions were used successfully to further remove regulatory oversight.  The combination substantially delayed effective governmental action, thereby substantially increasing the losses when the fraudulent [[Ponzi scheme]]s finally collapsed and were exposed.  After the collapse, regulators in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) were finally allowed to file thousands of criminal complaints that led to over a thousand felony convictions of key Savings and Loan insiders.{{sfn|Black|2005|p=}} By contrast, between 2007 and 2010, the OCC and OTS combined made zero criminal referrals;  Black concluded that elite financial fraud has effectively been decriminalized.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Black |first= Bill |author-link= William K. Black |date= December 28, 2010 |title= 2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud |journal= Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute |url= http://www.nextnewdeal.net/2011-will-bring-more-de-facto-decriminalization-elite-financial-fraud |access-date= September 7, 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140715051234/http://www.nextnewdeal.net/2011-will-bring-more-de-facto-decriminalization-elite-financial-fraud |archive-date= July 15, 2014 |url-status= dead }}</ref>

Economist [[Jayati Ghosh]] is of the opinion that deregulation is responsible for increasing price volatility on the commodity market. This particularly affects people and economies in developing countries. More and more homogenization of financial institution which may also be a result of deregulation turns out to be a major concern for small-scale producers in those countries.<ref>{{cite web |title=Too much of the same |author=Jayati Gosh |publisher=D+C Development and Cooperation/ dandc.eu |date=January 2013 |url=http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/globally-harmonised-banking-regulation-does-not-serve-developing-countries-needs}}</ref>