4 ms·

Regulatory capture is a big problem. One of the more bizarre twists in the Japanese nuclear story is that a program to develop robots that could remotely work i

Regulatory capture is a big problem. One of the more bizarre twists in the Japanese nuclear story is that a program to develop robots that could remotely work inside damaged nuclear generating stations was canceled out of fear that it would send a message that nuclear power isn't safe.

furyg3 13y ago
If that's true it's very interesting... Do you have any sources?
- stygiansonic 13y ago
  This is one anecdote I found: http://crasar.org/2011/03/17/word-from-japan-on-robots-and-fukushima/ http://crasar.org/2011/03/17/word-from-japan-on-robots-and-f...
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  You'll find a lot of stuff if you search for the nuclear safety myth in Japan. Here are a couple of links: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/world/asia/25myth.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/world/asia/25myth.html?pag... http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/06/09/national/myth-of-nuclear-safety-sets-back-robotic-research-and-development/ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/06/09/national/myth-of...
CWuestefeld 13y ago
Regulatory capture is a big problem. Regulatory capture is THE problem. Contrary to the parent post's claim, the problem is not with our "economic system". It's that, if you're going to regulate something (particularly something as complex as nuclear energy), then you need experts. And the only place to get those experts is from the industry. Generally, those people are naturally going to look at the industry from a certain perspective, one that views the activity of the industry as important, and its status quo as something other than an historical accident. Until you can find a way to extract human nature from the regulatory process -- and that's even before we start talking about corruption -- you're not going to get anything better. So sure, the industry tries to push the boundaries, and we should call them out for that. But while doing so, we must also consider how the regulators -- themselves humans -- might do even worse. That side of the equation is too often overlooked.
- ajscherer 13y ago
  >Regulatory capture is THE problem. This is difficult for me to understand. Are you suggesting that if nuclear power were completely unregulated, Tepco's behavior would've been more virtuous (as I read it, totally virtuous)? Or is the claim that regulation made the problem somewhat worse, and this margin (between how bad the problem would've been without regulation and how bad it was with regulation) is the only part that would even be humanly possible to rectify? Because if I owned the plant and I didn't have any regulators to deal with, I would think it in my interest to behave even worse: to lie more, to hide more, to be even less concerned about doing a thorough job of preventing the public's exposure to regulation.
  - palmer 13y ago
    Regulatory capture is when the people tasked with keeping an industry on its best behavior have too close ties to the industry, through personal connections or financial incentives, and are no longer able to do their jobs. I would agree that we have a problem with inadequate or corrupt regulators in several industries.
    - bradleyjg 13y ago
      Regulatory capture can take the form of outright corruption, but the more insidious form is cognitive capture. That's where the regulators simply don't have a sufficiently detached perspective from those they are regulating. They internalize the needs and thought patterns of the industry as there own. A related phenomenon in foreign affairs circles is called "going native".
      - redblacktree 13y ago
        That's very interesting. It's easy to imagine how, as a regulator, going out to dinner with the regulated (or their representatives) on a regular basis would influence your thinking. It doesn't require a conspiracy theory, so it gives us a great jumping-off point for a rational discussion about how to limit the opportunity for this phenomenon to manifest. Thanks for the new viewpoint!
coldtea 13y ago
That was a government sponsored program that was government canceled in the first place. A private company, would not have even bothered with it in the first place, especially if there was no subsidy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

furyg3 13y ago

If that's true it's very interesting... Do you have any sources?

stygiansonic 13y ago
This is one anecdote I found: http://crasar.org/2011/03/17/word-from-japan-on-robots-and-fukushima/ http://crasar.org/2011/03/17/word-from-japan-on-robots-and-f...
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
You'll find a lot of stuff if you search for the nuclear safety myth in Japan. Here are a couple of links: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/world/asia/25myth.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/world/asia/25myth.html?pag... http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/06/09/national/myth-of-nuclear-safety-sets-back-robotic-research-and-development/ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/06/09/national/myth-of...

CWuestefeld 13y ago

Regulatory capture is a big problem. Regulatory capture is THE problem. Contrary to the parent post's claim, the problem is not with our "economic system". It's that, if you're going to regulate something (particularly something as complex as nuclear energy), then you need experts. And the only place to get those experts is from the industry. Generally, those people are naturally going to look at the industry from a certain perspective, one that views the activity of the industry as important, and its status quo as something other than an historical accident. Until you can find a way to extract human nature from the regulatory process -- and that's even before we start talking about corruption -- you're not going to get anything better. So sure, the industry tries to push the boundaries, and we should call them out for that. But while doing so, we must also consider how the regulators -- themselves humans -- might do even worse. That side of the equation is too often overlooked.

ajscherer 13y ago
>Regulatory capture is THE problem. This is difficult for me to understand. Are you suggesting that if nuclear power were completely unregulated, Tepco's behavior would've been more virtuous (as I read it, totally virtuous)? Or is the claim that regulation made the problem somewhat worse, and this margin (between how bad the problem would've been without regulation and how bad it was with regulation) is the only part that would even be humanly possible to rectify? Because if I owned the plant and I didn't have any regulators to deal with, I would think it in my interest to behave even worse: to lie more, to hide more, to be even less concerned about doing a thorough job of preventing the public's exposure to regulation.
- palmer 13y ago
  Regulatory capture is when the people tasked with keeping an industry on its best behavior have too close ties to the industry, through personal connections or financial incentives, and are no longer able to do their jobs. I would agree that we have a problem with inadequate or corrupt regulators in several industries.
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    Regulatory capture can take the form of outright corruption, but the more insidious form is cognitive capture. That's where the regulators simply don't have a sufficiently detached perspective from those they are regulating. They internalize the needs and thought patterns of the industry as there own. A related phenomenon in foreign affairs circles is called "going native".
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      That's very interesting. It's easy to imagine how, as a regulator, going out to dinner with the regulated (or their representatives) on a regular basis would influence your thinking. It doesn't require a conspiracy theory, so it gives us a great jumping-off point for a rational discussion about how to limit the opportunity for this phenomenon to manifest. Thanks for the new viewpoint!

coldtea 13y ago

That was a government sponsored program that was government canceled in the first place. A private company, would not have even bothered with it in the first place, especially if there was no subsidy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]