How about stopping the revolving door between those who are regulated and those is the agencies doing the regulation?
Conflict of interest appointments result in probably the vast majority of anti-market, cartel-style behavior.
Conflict of interest appointments result in probably the vast majority of anti-market, cartel-style behavior.
You can eliminate conflicts of interest via financial disclosures etc, without eliminating competence.
I'm thinking about it in the government-to-industry direction, and particularly where compensation is so high for these ex-govvies. Why are these people worth so much? Either because:
1. The regulations are so complex to get around that companies need to pay a premium for that knowledge. (Bad.)
2. The regulations have so many loopholes that I need to hire someone to help me do whatever it is I want to do, but legally. (Bad.)
Both of these would appear to favor entrenched players who can afford this talent.
For the past two Presidential elections where the incumbent was term-limited, we've chosen the outsider candidate twice.
If these positions weren't appointed but elected - one could assume that the outsider would be preferred.
If conflicts of interest could be eliminated (I'd say reduced) via financial disclosures, why aren't they happening? I can name several appointees in the current and past 2 administrations that had conflicts of interest.
No, you can expose conflicts of interest that way, but merely disclosing who's on whose payroll does not actually eliminate any conflict of interest.
And it's a false dichotomy that you either get industry insiders or "people who have no idea what they are regulating".
This isn't inherently true. Industry alums can and have taken regulatory actions in the public interest. Tom Wheeler, the former Chairman of the FCC, used to be a cable industry lobbyist and passed regulation in favor or net neutrality and despite the protests of the industry he used to regulate.
It turns out that the person and their intentions matter. When a revolving door person happens to take pro-industry actions it's not because they somehow fooled the government into thinking they'd act in the public good. The government knowingly appointed someone with pro-industry biases because the industry lobbied the government.
If we want the government to appoint people who will act in the public interest at the expense of the industry, we have to demand that. Sometimes that person will be from the industry. We may call them a dingo. But they'll turn out to act in our interests.