Government is not always best placed to get the balance right between protecting the public and reducing burdens on businesses. The US offers a tried-and-tested alternative, says Joshua Flax

The news that the Prime Minister and Chancellor recently wrote to regulators asking them to remove obstacles to economic growth raises the question about what “regulating for growth” actually means – and, more to the point, how you actually get there. From those regulators’ responses which have been made public, it’s not clear that they really know.

Regulating for growth is not a policy; it is, however, a shared aspiration to reduce the burdens imposed by the array of agencies and offices that administer regulatory state. The current condition is not the fault of any one government: everyone is to blame. No one wants to live in a society without rules to protect them from fire, food-borne disease and exploding electric car batteries.

Of course, these rules are never simple because the social, industrial, economic and political interests that are impacted demand some spectacular navigational abilities. Ministers are beset on all sides by the call of special interests. Well-intentioned bureaucrats are sometimes thoroughly expert in the industry they are regulating – and sometimes they are not. For that reason, reasonable people might question whether government is the best developer of these rules.

Getting........

© City A.M.