IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v1y1982i3p463-469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deregulation: The Principal Inconclusive Arguments1

Author

Listed:
  • Warren J. Samuels
  • James D. Shaffer

Abstract

The authors suggest that most arguments in favor of deregulation are really double‐edged swords which render the debate over deregulation inconclusive at best. They challenge the following positions as inconclusive: (1) that deregulation per se is good; (2) that it protects rights; (3) that deregulation removes uncertainties concerning the marketplace; (4) that it reduces “nitpicking” and coercive regulation; (5) that deregulation promotes greater productivity and efficiency; (6) that it combats inflation; (7) that regulations often cannot be justified by benefits over costs; and (8) there are serious problems of attaining optimum levels of regulation. Special interest groups in favor of deregulation are seen to bear a remarkable resemblance to groups opposed to deregulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Warren J. Samuels & James D. Shaffer, 1982. "Deregulation: The Principal Inconclusive Arguments1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 1(3), pages 463-469, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:1:y:1982:i:3:p:463-469
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00450.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00450.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00450.x?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
    ---><---

    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:bla:revpol:v:1:y:1982:i:3:p:463-469. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.