000 02150pab a2200181 454500
008 180718b2011 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 _aRaine, John W.
245 _aThe local regulatory state: A state of double standards?
260 _c2011
300 _ap.159-170.
362 _aFeb
520 _aTwo starkly contrasting strategies are discernible in the way local authorities currently approach and go about their regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. On the one hand, a "deterrence" strategy of "pursue and punish" is robustly pursued in many local areas in relation to individuals who infringe and contravene local regulations, notably in relation to "street scene" issues of littering, waste/recycling and materials sorting/separation, smoking in public places, parking, cycling on pavements, feeding pigeons, and so on, while, on the other, a much more positive "compliance" strategy of "counsel and conduce" is widely promoted and pursued in relation to the regulation of standards in local businesses, for example, in relation to public and environmental health/hygiene, health and safety in the workplace, animal welfare, and licensing of premises. Why do local authorities operate with such apparent double standards? Why do comparatively minor infringements by local citizens so frequently result in the summary imposition of fixed penalties (which can be quite punitive for those on low incomes) while at the same time local businesses are mostly treated to a regulatory culture which is much more sympathetic and supportive in promoting compliance with the rules? This article draws on research conducted in different local regulatory settings which illustrates the two contrasting regimes in practice. It presents live propositions which help us to understand and explain the apparent double standards and it concludes by considering the steps that might be taken to ensure a more equitable and consistent local regulatory framework for the future. - Reproduced.
650 _aLocal government
700 _aDunstana, Eileen
773 _aInternational Journal of Public Administration
908 _aN
909 _a96618
999 _c96618
_d96618