Commenting on Peter O. Steiner\u27s The Legalization of American Society: Economic Regulation

Commenting on Peter O. Steiner\u27s The Legalization of American Society: Economic Regulation Professor Cramton opened with praise for Professor Steiner\u27s integration of various theories into a new and effective statement of those characteristics endemic to economic regulation which tend to make its results suboptimal. While Cramton saw Steiner\u27s typology of the three types of regulation as helpful in focusing attention on the purposes of regulation, he cautioned that the typology should be viewed as involving dominant characteristics or ideal types rather than a description of historical purity. The three types of regulation are often intermixed , Cramton reminded his audience, in the constant historical growth of regulation. Cramton followed this cautionary corrective with a more direct challenge to Steiner\u27s hypotheses about what causes change in regulation . Steiner\u27s remarks underemphasize the responsiveness of our political institutions to self-interest, crisis, and catastrophe, said Cramton, who proposed to discuss the dynamics of political change that can disrupt stable regulatory regimes