4 ms·

> But it would be hard to shut this down because regulatory bodies need industry insiders working for them. You don’t want the agencies to be composed of people

> But it would be hard to shut this down because regulatory bodies need industry insiders working for them. You don’t want the agencies to be composed of people who couldn’t hack it in the private sector. I think this problem (the need for industry players in regulatory bodies) is overstated by many. In particular, you don't need them in leadership roles, they can just consult. We could also write a law to close the door on their return to an industry after working as a regulator, but we don't. My conclusion is that the corrupt practices continue mainly because the corrupt people want them to.

anon373839 3y ago
I think you do need them to be providing significant input and direction, because otherwise you are likely to wind up with regulations that are divorced from reality. Focusing on a single issue in isolation -- even one as important as "safety" (as suggested by the sibling comment) causes a cascade of unforeseen consequences. As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts.
- smolder 3y ago
  > As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts. This is an easier problem to solve than the one we started with: people not incentivized to do their jobs as regulators (and often they do the opposite, just creating a moat for the companies they regulate.) I don't think successfully leading a regulatory body is career suicide even if they can't go take a payout in industry afterwards, but even so there are lots of ways to balance out that disincentive to work in government that doesn't involve undermining the whole effort at regulation (as the status quo revolving door does.)

anon373839 3y ago

I think you do need them to be providing significant input and direction, because otherwise you are likely to wind up with regulations that are divorced from reality. Focusing on a single issue in isolation -- even one as important as "safety" (as suggested by the sibling comment) causes a cascade of unforeseen consequences. As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts.

smolder 3y ago
> As to outlawing the return to the private sector, that makes it career suicide to touch a government job. I don't see how that will bring high quality candidates to these posts. This is an easier problem to solve than the one we started with: people not incentivized to do their jobs as regulators (and often they do the opposite, just creating a moat for the companies they regulate.) I don't think successfully leading a regulatory body is career suicide even if they can't go take a payout in industry afterwards, but even so there are lots of ways to balance out that disincentive to work in government that doesn't involve undermining the whole effort at regulation (as the status quo revolving door does.)