> ...occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
My description was just more succinct and didn't identify every single entity that could be coopted and every single group that could benefit. Regulatory capture is unnecessary and onerous checks and balances, not the removal of regulatory checks and balances that you implied.
Your descriptions both here and above seem incorrect to me. Regulatory capture does not mean onerous or unnecessary regulations, that is wrong. It also does not necessarily mean less strict regulations either, however Boeing v FAA in 2019 is a well known case of Boeing actively preventing oversight.
Regulatory capture means that the entities being regulated have control over the regulatory process, despite a conflict of interest.
> not the removal of regulatory checks and balances that you implied.
Regulatory Capture is when the checks and balances are biased in favor of special interests. You may have misunderstood what I said.
It’s hard to imagine and hard to find evidence of special interests making their own regulations more onerous, but I invite you to try. There probably are lots of cases of companies making regulations easier on themselves and harder on competitors.
> There probably are lots of cases of companies making regulations easier on themselves and harder on competitors.
And how exactly do you think this is accomplished from the perspective of people outside the captured regulatory system? Ie from the perspective of those not already on the inside of the corrupt regulatory scheme?
From the outside, it’s accomplished via private interests bending the regulations in their favor, which is why we have a term for it: “regulatory capture”.
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you still stuck on the incorrect notion that “regulatory capture” can be summarized as onerous regulation? That simply does not work, but I’m happy to keep trying to explain why, if it’s not clear yet. There are also plenty of cases of regulatory capture dismantling regulations for everyone. Again, the single most relevant case in this thread, of Boeing circa the Lion Air crashes, is one of removing regulation. No regulations were made onerous or unnecessary in that case, it was the opposite of that, the regulation was bypassed for Boeing’s benefit, effectively removing it, and it remained unchanged for other carriers.
When regulatory capture occurs, sometimes regulations get harder, and sometimes they get easier. Whether it’s one or the other depends on the case, and depends on whose perspective it is. Trying to summarize “regulatory capture” as making regulations harder is just false, because that’s not what always happens, and not even what usually happens, and it completely fails to mention the primary relevant point: the special interest getting prioritized over the public interest.
> ...occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
My description was just more succinct and didn't identify every single entity that could be coopted and every single group that could benefit. Regulatory capture is unnecessary and onerous checks and balances, not the removal of regulatory checks and balances that you implied.