IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v42y2021i1p24-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: an empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Zarkin

Abstract

When and how do regulatory agencies use expert knowledge? Schrefler (2010. “The Usage of Scientific Knowledge by Independent Regulatory Agencies.” Governance 23: 309–330; 2013. Economic Knowledge in Regulation: The Use of Expertise by Independent Agencies. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press) provides the most theoretically advanced answer to this question by arguing that two main independent variables impact knowledge utilization in agencies: the tractability of the policy problem under consideration, and the degree of political conflict surrounding the issue. Although Schrefler finds some support for her theory in three cases of regulatory policymaking by the UK Office of Communications, little effort has been made to test and refine her ideas outside of the UK context. In this paper, I take up that challenge by applying Schrefler’s theory to the case of the US Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to regulate cable television between 1956 and 1979. In addition to operationalizing Schrefler’s theory, I argue that two additional independent variables – legal directives and agency leadership – need to be considered when analyzing knowledge utilization by regulatory agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Zarkin, 2021. "Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: an empirical examination of Schrefler’s typology," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 24-41, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:42:y:2021:i:1:p:24-41
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2020.1772220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2020.1772220
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2020.1772220?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:42:y:2021:i:1:p:24-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.