IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article


Listed author(s):
  • Warren J. Samuels
  • James D. Shaffer

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. Copyright 1982 by The Policy Studies Organization.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Policy Studies Organization in its journal Review of Policy Research.

Volume (Year): 1 (1982)
Issue (Month): 3 (02)
Pages: 463-469

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:1:y:1982:i:3:p:463-469
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.