by Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer

This essay originally appeared on The Bridge on September 25, 2019.

It is quickly becoming one of the iron laws of technology policy that by attempting to address one problem (like privacy, security, safety, or competition), policymakers often open up a different problem on another front. Trying to regulate to protect online safety, for example, might give rise to privacy concerns, or vice versa. Or taking steps to address online privacy through new regulations might create barriers to new entry, thus hurting online competition.

In a sense, this is simply a restatement of the law of unintended consequences. But it seems to be occurring with greater regularity in the technology policy today, and it serves as another good reminder why humility is essential when considering new regulations for fast-moving sectors.

Consider a few examples.

Privacy vs security & competition 

Many US states and the federal government are considering data privacy regulations in the vein of the European Union’s wide-reaching General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR). But as early experiences with the GDPR and various state efforts can attest, regulations aimed at boosting consumer privacy can often butt against other security and competition concerns.

Consider how the GDPR can be abused to undermine user security—and ultimately (and ironically) privacy itself. At this year’s Black Hat computer security conference, one researcher recently explained how the GDPR’s “right of access” provision—which mandates that companies give users their personal data—can be exploited by malicious actors to steal personally identifiable information. If a hacker is convincing enough, he or she can use “social engineering” to pose as the target and coax companies to divulge the information. Without GDPR’s mandated reporting infrastructure, such an attack would be much harder.

Nor are malicious actors even necessary for the GDPR to undermine security. In 2018, a customer requested their Alexa voice recordings from Amazon. The company sent the data to the wrong person in an apparent case of human error. If mighty Amazon cannot rise to the challenge of error-free GDPR compliance, what hope do smaller outfits have?

Perhaps the biggest story about the GDPR, however, has been its malign effects on competition. After all, the law earned its nickname—the “Google Data Protection Regulation”—for a reason. Titans like Google and Facebook have dominated European ad tech market since the advent of the GDPR because they can shoulder compliance risks in a way that smaller vendors cannot. More ad money has flowed to Google’s coffers as a result.

But the GDPR applies to far more than just ad tech. Ventures as varied as publishing and virtual tabletop dice rollers have been forced to shutter their digital doors rather than risk the wrath of European data authorities.

Similar stories emanate from the US. Illinois’ biometric privacy law, which governs the use of technologies like facial recognition and fingerprint scanning, led to the prohibition of Google’s Arts and Culture app which matched user-submitted photos with a classical work of art. If Google can’t hack it in the Land of Lincoln, how could a potential Google-slayer be expected to do so?

These are just the stories we hear about. A prematurely thwarted venture is unlikely to have a platform to voice their compliance problems. What is clear is that the data privacy laws enacted so far have had predictable negative impacts on security and competition, and that ill-defined “privacy fundamentalism” too often drives ill-fitting policies.

Safety vs. free speech & competition

Content moderation at scale is extremely challenging, especially as it relates to efforts to address “hate speech” and extremist viewpoints. On the one hand, free speech activists argue that onerous private content moderation policies can limit debate and punish certain viewpoints, particularly if a platform is a public default for expression. On the other hand, social justice activists contend that lax private standards can fuel the proliferation of conspiracy theories, radicalization, and violent rhetoric.

Recently, President Trump and some conservative lawmakers have been clamoring for greater regulatory controls of social media platforms in the name of “fairness” and countering supposed anti-conservative bias. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, have introduced a bill that would require platforms to submit their content moderation policies to regular regulatory audits. If a platform is deemed to be not “politically neutral,” it will lose its liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This is reminiscent of the “fairness doctrine,” a long-standing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy that was a thinly-veiled attempt to influence the political content of broadcast programs. Conservatives rightly opposed such government involvement in content decisions in decades past, but with this new effort against technology platforms, many of them are repeating the mistakes of the past.

The history of the actual fairness doctrine serves as a cautionary tale here. Today the fairness doctrine is mostly remembered as an anti-conservative effort because of the attention paid to right-leaning talk radio. Former Kennedy administration official Bill Ruder admitted that their “massive strategy was to use the [fairness doctrine] to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters, and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too costly to continue.”

But as testaments from previous broadcast leaders point out, the fairness doctrine was wielded against both “conservatives” and “liberals” depending on who was in power and what their objectives were. When the Nixon administration took office, they wielded the rule to muzzle broadcasters who criticized the White House. And the FCC also applied the doctrine against The Kingmen’s song “Louie Louie” for its suspiciously unintelligible lyrics.

The tension between policies to promote “safety” and government-protected rights to free speech can be literal, as well. Consider efforts to ban so-called “3-D printed guns.” Defense Distributed and other activists do not 3-D print and sell guns. Rather, they publish the schematics for others to print their own arms online. As with the encryption technologies we will discuss below, such code is probably First Amendment-protected speech, although the applications of the schematics may be considered “dual-use” (meaning with both civilian and military applications.) An outright ban on 3-D printed gun blueprints very clearly antagonizes the right to free speech in the US and could threaten innovation in other open source, peer-to-peer 3D-printed applications.

Safety vs. privacy & security

Efforts to promote “safety” can also too often backfire at the expense of privacy and security.

Perhaps the most dramatic and high-stakes illustration of this principle was the years-long legal drama that pitted law enforcement authorities against computer scientists in the so-called “Crypto Wars.” Although cryptographic technologies that conceal data for privacy or security have been around since the days of ancient Egypt—our own Founding Fathers are known to have communicated using ciphers—in the 20th century, they had mostly been limited to military and academic institutions.

The advent of public-key cryptography made these security techniques more accessible to the public for the first time. This was great news for information security: communications and devices could be made hardened to attacks, and people were given more privacy options. But law enforcement feared that criminals would use cryptography to cover their tracks. Thus, in the name of safety, law enforcement first tried banning cryptography as a dual use technology through munitions export controls. When that failed on First Amendment grounds, policymakers attempted to legislate “backdoors” into encryption protocols that would allow government access.

It is easy to see how outright bans or backdoors for encryption technologies could hurt privacy and security. Obviously, prohibiting the civilian use of a privacy and security technology limits privacy and security. But granting government access into encryption standards would ironically ultimately undermine safety as well. After all, if a government can get into an encryption standard, so might a malicious hacker. Although the “Crypto Wars” seemed settled in the 1990’s, these same debates have been cropping up again as more and more devices have default encryption technologies.

We can also think about mandated reporting requirements intended to promote public safety. Consider the “know your customer” rules imposed on financial institutions. To prevent ills like money laundering and financial fraud, banks and exchanges must keep detailed customer information on file. Yet this ostensibly “pro-safety” rule generates its own security and privacy risks. Banks must manage to responsibly store and protect this valuable customer data, lest their customers’ information get hacked and their identities stolen. This has sadly too often proven too tall an order, and third-party-managed personally identifiable information is exposed to outside parties all the time.

A similar problem arises with efforts to promote child safety online. Consider the debate over MySpace’s age verification efforts in the mid-2000s. Child safety advocates grew concerned over the risks facing children on new social media platforms. Young children lacking awareness of the dangers that could lurk online could unwittingly make friendships with predators posing as other children. So a movement grew to require these new platforms to verify age and identity with a government-provided identification card.

There were obvious technical problems. For starters, children that were young enough to fall under the age verification limit were unlikely to have a government-provided photo identification card. But beyond these simple administrative issues, there was the question of privacy and security. Could Myspace adequately protect the reams of sensitive data from outside breach? Might children actually be put more at danger should those items—which would likely include the children’s address—fall into the wrong hands? And should the government and social media platforms really be in the business of parenting to begin with? Might this actually create a “moral hazard” which leaves parents thinking that online spaces are safer than they actually are?

Tying it all together

In each of these instances, it probably seemed like there was no downside to newly proposed regulations. With time, however, the dynamic effects associated with those policies become evident, and often result in the opposite of what was intended, or the policies led to other problems that supporters did not originally envision.

The nineteenth-century French economic philosopher Frédéric Bastiat famously explained the importance of considering the many unforeseen, second-order effects of economic change and policy. Many pundits and policy analysts pay attention to only the first-order effects—what Bastiat called “the seen”—and ignore the subsequent and often “unseen” effects. Those unseen effects can have profound real-world consequences in the form of less technological innovation, diminished growth, fewer job opportunities, higher prices, diminished choices, and other costs.

Even when defenders of the failed interventions are forced to admit that their well-intentioned plans did not work out as planned, their response is typically of the  we-can-do-better variety. The result is usually just more regulation as one intervention begs another and another. As the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises taught us 70 years ago in his masterwork, Human Action:

“All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which—from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations—is less desirable than the previous state affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther…”

The lesson is clear: paternalistic public policies may sound sensible on the surface, but as Milton Friedman taught us long ago, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions.”

“Responsible research and innovation,” or “RRI,” has become a major theme in academic writing and conferences about the governance of emerging technologies. RRI might be considered just another variant of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and it indeed borrows from that heritage. What makes RRI unique, however, is that it is more squarely focused on mitigating the potential risks that could be associated with various technologies or technological processes. RRI is particularly concerned with “baking-in” certain values and design choices into the product lifecycle before new technologies are released into the wild.

In this essay, I want to consider how RRI lines up with the opposing technological governance regimes of “permissionless innovation” and the “precautionary principle.” More specifically, I want to address the question of whether “permissionless innovation” and “responsible innovation” are even compatible. While participating in recent university seminars and other tech policy events, I have encountered a certain degree of skepticism—and sometimes outright hostility—after suggesting that, properly understood, “permissionless innovation” and “responsible innovation” are not warring concepts and that RRI can co-exist peacefully with a legal regime that adopts permissionless innovation as its general tech policy default. Indeed, the application of RRI lessons and recommendations can strengthen the case for adopting a more “permissionless” approach to innovation policy in the United States and elsewhere.

Definitional Ambiguities, Part 1: “Governance”

Before we can have a constructive conversation about these issues, however, we need to agree upon how narrowly or broadly we are defining some relevant terms, beginning with the word “governance.” When some hear the term “governance” their first reaction might be to think “government,” and formal legal and regulatory processes in particular. That is certainly one form of governance, but it is hardly the only one.

We often speak of the “governance” of corporations, schools, churches, other institutions, and even households. When we do, we usually do not mean government administration of these things; we are instead thinking of some other, more amorphous form of governance by a variety of individuals or groups. The “governance” of a company, for example, includes the interaction of shareholders, board members, corporate officials, workers, and so on. The “governance” of a church might involve clergy, the congregation, and sacred scriptures or traditions.  Household “governance” comes down to decisions made by parents and caretakers. And so on.

Thus, “governance” can certainly have the narrow connotation of being associated with formal regulatory enactments by governments, but it can also describe a much broader universe of norms and rules that are established and enforced by a wide variety of people (or groups of people) in a wide variety of ways.

When we consider questions of technological governance—and specifically the notion of “anticipatory governance,” which is prominent feature of RRI discussions—it helps to specify whether we are speaking of governance in a broad or narrow sense. Whether it is done consciously or not, in much of the literature, RRI scholars and advocates fail to make it clear what type of “governance” they are thinking of when proposing new forms of anticipatory technological governance.

Definitional Ambiguities, Part 2: “Precautionary Principle” & “Permissionless Innovation”

These distinctions are particularly important when we compare and contrast the “precautionary principle” and “permissionless innovation.” These concepts are most useful when viewed as governance dispositions or policy postures and they are usually—although not always—used in the narrow “governance” sense to describe one’s perspective on where legal and regulatory defaults should be set.

Even when applied narrowly, however, both terms are open to interpretation as applied in various policy contexts. For example, precaution could mean an outright prohibition on an innovative activity until such time as it had been proven safe (this is the way many FDA or FAA regulations work). But precaution might be imposed through somewhat less restrictive approaches, such as a set of government-established safety standards buttressed by a recall regime (think NHTSA or CPSC). Even less restrictive but still precautionary in orientation would be a mandatory labeling law or a government-led risk reduction educational campaign. In other words, there are probably as many flavors of the precautionary principle as there are flavors of ice cream.

For the longest time, both proponents and critics of the precautionary principle have failed to put a name on its opposing worldview or governance disposition. I have argued that, despite its uncertain origin and imprecise meaning, “permissionless innovation” provides a useful name for the antithesis of the precautionary principle.

As I noted in a recent speech at an Arizona State University law school conference on technological governance, critics of permissionless innovation sometimes like to imply that it is synonymous with anarchy. (In fact, a few people at that event leveled that accusation at me.) But I’ve written an entire book on this notion and surveyed countless essays and articles that cite the term, and I have never once seen any advocate of permissionless innovation going to such an extreme. In fact, those advocates often don’t even bother calling for the abolition of any laws, programs, or agencies. As I noted in my ASU talk, “most of those defenders of permissionless innovation are using the term as a sort of shorthand when what they really mean to say is something like: ‘give innovators a bit more breathing room,’ or, ‘don’t rush to regulate.’”

And so, as a policy posture, permissionless innovation really comes down to a preference for setting public policy defaults closer to green lights rather than red ones. In my own book on the subject, I defined the term as follows:

“Permissionless innovation refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.”

By contrast, the precautionary principle posture generally recommends keeping the light red until innovators can prove their new products and services are “safe,” however that is defined. But there are many points along the spectrum between these two policy postures. And if we can accept the idea that the “precautionary principle” and “permissionless innovation” act more as general governance dispositions instead of fixed and rigid edicts, then it is also easier to imagine how both of those dispositions can incorporate “responsible innovation” notions into their governance visions.

Definitional Ambiguities, Part 3: “Responsible Innovation”

But what exactly constitutes “responsible innovation”? Definitions of responsible research and innovation are still evolving, but a leading article on the subject by René von Schomberg from 2011 argues that it can be defined as:

“A transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).”

A more streamlined definition was offered by Jack Stigloe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten in a 2013 article: “Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present.” They also proposed four dimensions of responsible innovation—anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness—which they say “provide a framework for raising, discussing and responding to such questions.”

RRI Tools, a European consortium focused on promoting responsible innovation strategies, identifies the six core goals of RRI as: open access, gender equality in science, ethics, science education, governance, and public engagement. Other groups and individuals promoting RRI focus on privacy, safety, and security as crucial values that they hope to work into more product development processes early on.

As with “corporate social responsibility” before it, “responsible innovation” will remain a term that is open to varying interpretations and which can incorporate many distinct values that are context-dependent. What Milton Friedman said of CSR discussions in 1970—that they “are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor”—continues to be somewhat true for both CSR and RRI circa 2017. Nonetheless, what both concepts hold in common is the belief that, whatever those “responsible” values are, they can be “baked in” to corporate decision-making and product design processes in an anticipatory fashion.

And while not everyone will agree on the contours of these concepts, practically speaking, I think we can expect both the CSR and RRI movement will continue to grow in coming years. That will be the case not only because of the pressures applied by various activists, stakeholders, and governments, but also because many companies and their consumers will demand more than just better products and greater profitability.

But Doesn’t RRI Necessitate the Precautionary Principle as a Policy Prerequisite?

But how precisely should RRI notions and recommendations influence policy deliberations over the future course of technological governance in the narrow sense of the term (i.e., more legalistic sense)? Here’s where things get more interesting.

The problem is that many of the advocates of RRI are seemingly more sympathetic to precautionary policy regimes and skeptical of the wisdom of permissionless innovation as a policy default. This is not always well-articulated in their writing. Instead, it is the attitude seemingly on display when I speak with RRI advocates or hear them deliver speeches.  Yet, most of these advocates just won’t ever let you nail them down on the point.

Some RRI advocates do come close to making that connection. In his seminal article, Rene von Schomberg argues that RRI, “can reduce the human cost of trial and error and make advantage of a societal learning process of stakeholders and technical innovators. It creates a possibility for anticipatory governance,” he says. “This should ultimately lead to products which are (more) societal robust.”

He then briefly raises the possibility of RRI informing the application of the precautionary principle in public policy debates:

“The precautionary principle works as an incentive to make safe and sustainable products and allow governmental bodies to intervene with Risk Management decisions (such as temporary licensing, case by case decision making etc) whenever necessary in order to avoid negative impacts.”

Yet, von Schomberg never really spells out the exact relationship between RRI and the precautionary principle as a matter of public policy .

Another leading article on the meaning of RRI by Grace Eden, Marina Jirotka, and Bernd Stahl, says that, “The RRI focus is more on mitigating wider societal long-term risks and so favors incremental rather than radical innovation.” That seems to suggest a closer connection between RRI and a formal application of the precautionary principle in policy deliberations about emerging technologies. They also speak of the “two very different approaches to problem solving (anticipatory vs. evidence-based),” which I have argued gets to the heart of the divergence between the precautionary principle and permissionless innovation policy paradigms. Yet, these authors do not dwell on this connection at length, and most of the rest of their article is focused on the ways in which RRI can (and already does) infuse product and service development processes outside of the realm of public policy.

In a 2015 Brookings Institution white paper about RRI, Walter D. Valdivia and David H. Guston offer a more concrete answer to this question when they insist that responsible innovation “is not a doctrine of regulation and much less an instantiation of the precautionary principle; the actions it recommends do not seek to slow down innovation because they do not constrain the set of options for researchers and businesses, they expand it.” They continue on to note that:

“[responsible innovation] considers innovation inherent to democratic life and recognizes the role of innovation in the social order and prosperity. It also recognizes that at any point in time, innovation and society can evolve down several paths and the path forward is to some extent open to collective choice. What RI pursues is a governance of innovation where that choice is more consonant with democratic principles.”

Here, finally, we have a better demarcation between the general notion of RRI and the formal application of the precautionary principle. But is that line really so bright? Do other RRI scholars agree with Valdivia and Guston about this separation between the “responsible innovation” movement and the formal application of the precautionary principle in the policy realm? And, finally, what is meant by “democratic life” and “democratic principles” in this context?

I suspect that many RRI advocates would read that last line from Valdivia and Guston above (“What RI pursues is a governance of innovation where that choice is more consonant with democratic principles.”) and suggest that it favors an embrace of the precautionary principle as the default position in emerging technology policy discussions. But, again, that remains open to debate because so much of the RRI literature lacks precision regarding the connection between these concepts.

How RRI Can be Compatible with Both Visions

Regardless, I would like to suggest that parties on both sides of this debate would be wise to divorce the concept of responsible innovation from their priors regarding optimal regulatory policy toward emerging technology. Properly understood, “responsible innovation” could be a feature of the “precautionary” vision, but it could also be compatible with the “permissionless” governance vision and resulting policy regimes. To reach that understanding, both sides will need to be open to learning from the other and willing to take their concerns seriously.

Advocates of RRI should understand that, just as CSR can do a great deal of good even in the absence of formal regulatory action, the same can be true of RRI, even in a policy regime in which permissionless innovation is the general default.

If, however, the first instinct among the RRI community is to consider advocates of permissionless innovation nothing more than a bunch of uncaring anarchists, they relinquish the opportunity to work with diverse parties to instill wise guidelines into technological development processes. This would be particularly misguided in an age when the so-called “Pacing Problem”—i.e., the growing gap between the introduction of new technologies and time it takes laws and regulations to adjust or be formulated in response—has become an ever-accelerating reality, making traditional “hard law” regulatory enactment increasingly difficult. If the RRI community wants to get any of the values that they care about incorporated into technological development processes, then they will need to be open to the idea that perhaps the only way to do so will be through less formal procedures precisely because law will likely lag so far behind marketplace developments.

Likewise, if the first instinct among the permissionless innovation advocates is to regard the RRI movement as little more than repackaged Ludditism, hell-bent on derailing all the great inventions of the future, then they are foolishly forgoing the chance to work with a diverse group of well-intentioned scholars and stakeholders who could ensure that new products and services gain more widespread acceptance and public trust. More practically, permissionless innovation advocates would be wise to accept the fact that, although technological innovation is generally outpacing the ability of government to keep up, that doesn’t mean most of the traditional regulatory regimes or agencies are going away any time soon. After all, can you name a technocratic law or regulatory body that has been liberalized or eliminated in recent memory? RRI offers a chance to forge a rough peace with agencies and officials who often just want to have a small say in how innovative processes are unfolding. Of course, if regulators seek to have a BIG say in those matters, then policy fights will no doubt ensue. But in my experience, this is less often the case than some defenders of permissionless innovation suggest.

Thus, advocates of permissionless innovation should understand that RRI is not synonymous with a formal precautionary principle-focused policy prescription and that “anticipatory governance” can mean something more generic and beneficial, so long as it does not come to mean the formal application of the precautionary principle as the public policy default.

We Are Already Going Down This Path

Perhaps I am being naïve to think this sort of common ground might exist. But the funny thing is that I know for a fact that it already does! RRI principles have been infusing various multistakeholder processes in the United States for many years now.

For example, here’s a paper I wrote back in 2009 about the various online safety task forces, blue ribbon commissions, and other collaborative efforts that were instilling “safety by design” principles into various online services and digital products. Meanwhile, “privacy by design” and “security by design” efforts are all the rage these days and a wide variety of best practices and codes of conduct have been established to make sure privacy and security values are baked-in to the product design process from the start.

Meanwhile, safety, security, and privacy best practices have increasingly been formulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce (the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in particular), the Federal Trade Commission, FDA, FCC, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. These multistakeholder efforts and agency best practice reports have contained assorted “responsible innovation” principles for technologies as wide-ranging as: big data, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, facial recognition, online advertising, mobile phone privacy, mobile apps for kids, driverless cars, commercial drones, genetic testing, medical advertising on social media, 3D printed medical devices, medical device cybersecurity, nanotech, and much more. (I have a forthcoming paper in the works with Ryan Hagemann of the Niskanen Center in which we attempt to document many of these new “soft law” technological governance efforts. There have been so many of these efforts – many of which are still underway – that we are having a hard time cataloging them all!)

I am utterly perplexed why more RRI scholarship has not identified the many ways in which the principles they advocate already infuse multistakeholder processes such as these. Perhaps it is because those scholars feel that some of these multistakeholder processes fail to address the full range of issues or values that they feel are in play. But if you examine recent reports from these agencies and government bodies, I think you will come away quite impressed by the breadth of issues and concerns that they cover. Likewise, the values and best practices they discuss and/or recommend are exactly the sort of responsible innovation principles that the RRI movement cares about.

To some extent, therefore, RRI is already well-entrenched in the technology governance process, it’s just a bit messy. I think some RRI scholars probably fall prey to the old “Goldilocks myth” that we can get these principles just right with enough consideration and oversight. The reality on the ground is that instilling RRI values into the technological design process is a dynamic, iterative, and quite imprecise art.

In closing, there’s still more to the technological governance story that RRI advocates fail to incorporate into their work. To fully appreciate the many ways technological processes are constrained and corrected, they must take into account other governance forces and factors, including the role of:

• social norms and reputational effects (especially the growing importance of reputational feedback mechanisms);
• third-party accreditation and standards-setting bodies;
• courts and common law (including legal solutions like product liability, negligence, design defects law, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and other assorted torts and class action claims);
• insurance markets as risk calibrators and correctional mechanisms;
• federal and state consumer protection agencies (such as the FTC), which police “unfair and deceptive practices” and other harms; and
• media, academic institutions, non-profit advocacy groups, and the general public more generally, all of which can put pressure on technology developers.

Only by taking into account the full range of players and activities at work can we develop a more robust understanding of how technology is actually “governed” in our modern world. I suspect that many in the RRI community of scholars do appreciate these other factors, even though they don’t always account for all of them in their writing and advocacy. Then again, many of those advocates would perhaps decry the more remedial, ex post nature of these governance tools and insist that more ex ante anticipatory planning must be at the heart of technological design and development processes.

In reality, a mix of these two approaches is already at work today and will likely continue to dominate the governance process well into the future. So long as the anticipatory efforts don’t become formal regulatory proposals, there is no reason that this mix of “responsible innovation” governance tools and methods can’t be embraced by a diverse array of scholars and innovators.

Further Reading:

• Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten, “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation,” Research Policy, Vol. 42, No. 9 (2013): 1568–80.
• Rene Von Schomberg (ed.), Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields, A Report from the European Commission Services, (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011).
• Grace Eden, Marina Jirotka, and Bernd Stahl, “Responsible Research and Innovation,” (IEEE: 2013).
• Walter D. Valdivia and David H. Guston, “Responsible Innovation: A Primer for Policymakers,” Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institution, (May 2015),
• “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business,” A Reason debate featuring Milton Friedman, Whole Foods’ John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor’s T.J. Rodgers, Milton Friedman, John Mackey & T.J. Rodgers,Oct. 1, 2005.
• Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
• Adam Thierer, “Wendell Wallach on the Challenge of Engineering Better Technology Ethics,” Technology Liberation Front, April 20, 2016.

One of my favorite themes, and not just in the field of tech policy, is the “Unintended Consequences of Well-Intentioned Regulations.” I believe that all laws and regulations have dynamic effects and that to fully appreciate the true impact of any particular public policy, you must always closely investigate the potential opportunity costs and unintended consequences associated with those policies. Because all too often laws and regulations are hastily put on the books with the very best of intentions in mind, only to later be shown to produce the opposite of what was intended.

Today’s case in point comes from a Wall Street Journal article by Rachel Bachman and it involves how the growing wave of cycling helmet laws are having a net negative impact on public health because they discourage ridership in the aggregate. Thus, those potential riders are then either (a) just less active overall or (b) driving their cars to get where they need to go. And both of those results are, ultimately, riskier than cycling without a helmet. For that reason, Bachman reports, cycling advocates “are pushing back against mandatory bike-helmet laws in the U.S. and elsewhere. They say mandatory helmet laws, particularly for adults, make cycling less convenient and seem less safe, thus hindering the larger public-health gains of more people riding bikes.” Supporting evidence comes from this 2012 paper in the journal Risk Analysis by Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Sydney’s Macquarie University. His paper included an empirical model that showed how mandatory bike-helmet laws “have a net negative health impact.”

This strikes me as one of the very best examples of how to do dynamic benefit-cost analysis and show the full range of societal impacts associated with well-intentioned regulations. And it reminds me of the playground example I use in several of my papers: Laws and liability threats discouraged tall playground climbing structures in the ’80s and ’90s. As a result of those policies, kids have been shown to not only be less active on playgrounds over the past two decades, but even more interesting is the fact that some studies suggest this led to phobias and anxieties about heights later in life when those children became adults. Again, dynamic effects matter! In this case, social learning and resiliency was stunted when children lacked the ability to explore and push boundaries. In essence, it’s the “Boy in the Bubble” problem. [Read this 2012 law review article of mine for all the details on this particular case study.]

Of course, those of you who have read your Frédéric Bastiat have already identified these case studies as excellent examples of what the nineteenth-century French economic philosopher was talking about when he famously explained the importance of considering the many unforeseen, second-order effects of economic change and policy. Many pundits and policy analysts pay attention to only the first-order effects—what Bastiat called “the seen”—and ignore the subsequent and often “unseen” effects. In both these cases, policymakers were myopically obsessed with the short-term “seen” benefit of bike helmet laws or playground safety restrictions. At first blush, it probably seemed like their was no downside to such rules. Of course, a fuller exploration of the potential dynamic effects associated with those policies revealed the opposite effect: They discouraged public health in the aggregate.

Again, every action—especially political and regulatory action—has dynamic consequences. Paternalistic public policies may sound sensible on the surface, but as Milton Friedman taught us long ago, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions.”

[ Note: If you are interested in more examples like this, I encourage you to read, “The Unintended Consequences of Safety Regulation” by my Mercatus Center colleague Sherzod Abdukadirov.]

The New York Times reports that, “Facebook is hoping to do something better and faster than any other technology start-up-turned-Internet superpower. Befriend Washington. Facebook has layered its executive, legal, policy and communications ranks with high-powered politicos from both parties, beefing up its firepower for future battles in Washington and beyond.”  The article goes on to cite a variety of recent hires by Facebook, its new DC office, and its increased political giving.

This isn’t at all surprising and, in one sense, it’s almost impossible to argue with the logic of Facebook deciding to beef up its lobbying presence inside the Beltway. In fact, later in the Times story we hear the same two traditional arguments trotted out for why Facebook must do so: (1) Because everyone’s doing it! and (2) You don’t want be Microsoft, do you?   But I’m not so sure whether “normalizing relations” with Washington is such a good idea for Facebook or other major tech companies, and I’m certainly not persuaded by the logic of those two common refrains regarding why every tech company must rush to Washington.

In an essay I penned for the Cato Institute last November entitled “The Sad State of Cyber-Politics,” I reiterated arguments made a decade earlier by two brilliant men: Cypress Semiconductor CEO T. J. Rodgers and the late great Milton Friedman. Rodgers penned a prescient manifesto for Cato in 2000 with the provocative title: “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.” in which he argued that, “The political scene in Washington is antithetical to the core values that drive our success in the international marketplace and risks converting entrepreneurs into statist businessmen.” A year earlier, Friedman penned another Cato essay called “The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse” in which he lamented the persistent propensity of companies to persecute one’s competitors using regulation or the threat thereof. What both men stressed was that coming to Washington has a tendency to change a company’s focus and disposition, and not for the better — if you believe in real capitalism, that is, and not the abominable crony capitalism fostered by Washington.

But few in the high-tech world have listened to this logic, especially when the whole rest of the world was falling all over themselves to open a Washington, DC office first in an effort to cover their butts from regulatory encroachments and then later to figure out how the wield the hammer of Big Government to their corporate advantage. I documented numerous examples of the latter in my Cato essay.

I’m not saying that the folks at Facebook are going to be looking to screw over their competitors right away. In fact, I can’t currently think of any examples of how they might.  The company is still firmly in that “cover your butt” period that is common when a hot new digital innovator first comes to DC.  And I certainly can’t blame them for wanting to push back against many misguided forms of Internet regulation, such as free speech controls or heavy-handed privacy regulation.  But I fear there will come a day when they fall in line with many other high-tech companies and trade associations and seek to turn the regulatory state to their advantage.  Only time will tell. And I certainly hope I am wrong.

Regardless, as the folks at Facebook and other high-tech firms ponder their future inside the Beltway, let me ask them to return to the two premises for “normalizing relations” that I cited above and explain why they are not exactly true:

Premise #1: Everyone’s doing it!  Most are, but not all. How active are Apple and Sony to name just two companies without a major DC presence?  Most days of the week, Steve Jobs seems to be giving DC a big middle finger. I’m the last guy in the world you’ll ever hear giving Apple much credit since I hate their products, but Jobs is about the closest thing you’ll find to an Ayn Rand character in Silicon Valley these days.  He seems to do exactly what he wants to build innovative products for consumers and, in the process, ignore all his critics, especially those in Washington. Of course, not everybody can be Steve Jobs in this regard, but I can’t help but wonder: Why don’t more of them try? What if high-tech entrepreneurs just told Washington to buzz off?

Premise #2: You don’t want be Microsoft, do you? The Times article says, “legal analysts say Facebook is hoping to avoid mistakes made by predecessors like Microsoft. And they say the company is becoming politically savvy earlier in its life than Google, whose connections were firmly established once Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive, advised the Obama presidential campaign and the administration.”

I’ve never really bought into this argument. I think it’s pretty far-fetched to claim, as so many people in this field do, that if Microsoft would have just had a small army of lobbyists here on the ground back in the early 1990s that none of their antitrust problems would have popped up. And regarding Google coming to Washington in the hope of winning friends, well, how’s that working out for them?!  As I noted in my Cato essay:

Everybody — and I do mean everybody — wants Google dead, right now. Google currently serves as the Great Satan in this drama — taking over the role Microsoft filled a decade ago — as just about everyone views it with a combination of envy and enmity.

Indeed, no one could be happier about Facebook coming to town at this moment than Google!  They get to hand the “Great Satan” baton off to Facebook and wish them the best!  Of course, Google’s problems with Washington aren’t done by a long-shot, but I’m quite sure they’re relieved to see Facebook getting grilled more at hearings and events around town these days.

Anyway, in all seriousness, I’ll say the same thing to the fine folks in the Facebook DC office — several of whom I know well — that I’ve said to countless other tech companies here in the Beltway through the years: Stay true to the same principles that made your company so great to begin with.  It wasn’t Washington that built Facebook, or Google, or Microsoft, or any other high-tech innovators; it was entrepreneurial capitalism that did.  Free minds and free markets made the high-tech sector what it is today, not handouts and special favors from Washington. Stick to real capitalism; avoid the crony variety.

[Note: This post is updated regularly as I discover relevant old or new material.]

“Regulatory capture” occurs when special interests co-opt policymakers or political bodies — regulatory agencies, in particular — to further their own ends.  Capture theory is closely related to the “rent-seeking” and “political failure” theories developed by the public choice school of economics.  Another term for regulatory capture is “client politics,” which according to James Q. Wilson, “occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (and industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers).”  (James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy, 1989, at 76).

While capture theory cannot explain all regulatory policies or developments, it does provide an explanation for the actions of political actors with dismaying regularity.  Because regulatory capture theory conflicts mightily with romanticized notions of “independent” regulatory agencies or “scientific” bureaucracy, it often evokes a visceral reaction and a fair bit of denialism.  (See, for example, the reaction of New Republic’s Jonathan Chait to Will Wilkinson’s recent Economist column about the prevalence of corporatism in our modern political system.)  Yet, countless studies have shown that regulatory capture has been at work in various arenas: transportation and telecommunications; energy and environmental policy; farming and financial services; and many others.

I thought it might be useful to build a compendium of quotes from various economists and political scientists who have studied the regulatory process throughout history and identified regulatory capture or client politics as a major problem.  I would greatly appreciate having others suggest additional quotes and studies to add to this list since I plan to update it frequently and eventually work all of this into a future paper or book. [ Note: I have updated this compendium over a dozen times since the original post, so please check back for updates.]

The following list is chronological and begins, surprisingly, with the thoughts of progressive hero Woodrow Wilson…

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (1913) at 201-202:

“If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? Must capture the government? They have already captured it. Are you going to invite those inside to stay? They don’t have to get there. They are there.”

A. C. Pigou, Economics of Welfare, (1920), Ch. 20, Para. #4

“It is not sufficient to contrast the imperfect adjustments of unfettered private enterprise with the best adjustment that economists in their studies can imagine. For we cannot expect that any public authority will attain, or will even whole-heartedly seek, that ideal. Such authorities are liable alike to ignorance, to sectional pressure and to personal corruption by private interest. A loud-voiced part of their constituents, if organised for votes, may easily outweigh the whole.”

Anthony Downs, “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy,” 65 Journal of Political Economy 2 (1957), 135-150, at 136:

“…even if social welfare could be defined, and methods of maximizing it could be agreed upon, what reason is there to believe that the men who run the government would be motivated to maximize it? To state that “they should do so does not mean that they will.”

Ronald Coase, “The Federal Communications Commission” 2 Journal of Law and Economics (1959), 1-40, at 37. In commenting on the fact that many lawmakers bemoaned “the extent to which pressure is brought to bear on the [FCC] by politicians and businessmen,” Coase said “that this should be happening is hardly surprising.”  He continued on:

“When rights, worth millions of dollars, are awarded to one businessman and denied to others, it is no wonder if some applicants become overanxious and attempt to use whatever influence they have (political and otherwise), particularly as they can never be sure what pressure the other applicants may be exerting.”

Milton Friedman, Capitalism & Freedom (1962) at 140:

“the pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public . . . On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from the occupation itself.”

Harold Demsetz, “Why Regulate Utilities?,” 11(1) Journal of Law and Economics (Apr., 1968), at 61.

“…in utility industries, regulation has often been sought because of the inconvenience of competition.”

Richard Posner, “Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation,” 21(3) Stanford Law Review 548 (Feb., 1969):

“Because regulatory commissions are of necessity intimately involved in the affairs of a particular industry, the regulators and their staffs are exposed to strong interest group pressures.  Their susceptibility to pressures that may distort economically sound judgments is enhanced by the tradition of regarding regulatory commissions as ‘arms of the legislature,’ where interest-group pressures naturally play a vitally important role.”

George Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” 2(1) Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, (1971), 3-21 at 3:

“…as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.”

George Stigler, “Can Regulatory Agencies Protect the Consumer?” in The Citizen and the State: Essays on Regulation (1975), at 183:

“Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: ‘Competition Not Admitted.’ The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce , “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, ‘Monopoly Only by Appointment.’”

Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (2nd Ed., 1969, 1979) at 280:

“a considerable proportion of federal regulation, regardless of its own claim to consumer protection, has the systematic effect of constituting and maintaining a sector of the economy or the society. These are the policies of receivership by regulation.”

Alfred Kahn, The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions (1971):

“When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition.” (p. 12) “Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.” (p. 46)

Mark Green and Ralph Nader, “Economic Regulation vs. Competition: Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man,” Yale Law Journal 82, no. 5 (April 1973), 876

“a kind of regular personnel interchange between agency and industry blurs what should be a sharp line between regulator and regulatee, and can compromise independent regulatory judgment. In short, the regulated industries are often in clear control of the regulatory process.”

Richard B. McKenzie and Gordon Tullock, Modern Political Economy: An Introduction to Economics (1978) at 220:

“although regulation is begun with the good intentions of those who promote and pass the laws, somewhere along the line regulators may become pawns of the regulated firms.”

Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (1980) at 193:

“Every act of intervention establishes positions of power.  How that power will be used and for what purposes depends far more on the people who are in the best position to get control of that power and what their purposes are than on the aims and objectives of the initial sponsors of the intervention.”

Barry M. Mitnick, The Political Economy of Regulation: Creating, Designing, and Removing Regulatory Forms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), at 38:

“Much relatively recent research has argued that regulation was often sought by industries for their own protection, rather than being imposed in some ‘public interest.’ Although the distinction is not always made clear in this recent literature, we may add that regulation which is not directly sought at the outset is generally ‘captured’ later on so it behaves with consistency to the industry’s major interests, or at least has been observed to behave in this manner.”

Barry Weingast, “Regulation, Reregulation and Deregulation: The Foundation of Agency-Clientele Relationships,”44 Law and Contemporary Problems, (1981) pp. 147-77, at 151:

“Often, agencies are the vehicle for this endeavor. Agency heads and commission members, anxious to further their careers and goals (including large budgets) as well as completing their own of power and prestige pet projects and policy initiatives, depend upon service to interest their success groups and key committee members for their success.”

George Gilder, Wealth & Poverty (New York: Bantam Books, 1981), pp. 283:

“One reason for government resistance to change is that the process of creative destruction can attack not only an existing industry, but also the regulatory apparatus that subsists on it; and it is much more difficult to retrench a bureaucracy than it is to bankrupt a company. A regulatory apparatus is a parasite that can grow larger than its host industry and become in turn a host itself, with the industry reduced to parasitism, dependent on the subsidies and protections of the very government body that initially sapped its strength.”

Bruce Yandle,”Bootleggers and Baptists — The Education of a Regulatory Economist,” Regulation, Vol. 3, No. 3, (May/June 1983) p. 13:

“what do industry and labor want from the regulators? They want protection from competition, from technological change, and from losses that threaten profits and jobs. A carefully constructed regulation can accomplish all kinds of anticompetitive goals of this sort, while giving the citizenry the impression that the only goal is to serve the public interest.”

Thomas K. McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 263 [recounting the history of the Civil Aeronautics Board up until the time of Alfred Kahn ascendency to chairman and its eventual deregulation and abolition.]

“Clearly, in passing the Civil Aeronautics Act [of 1938], Congress intended to bring stability to airlines. What is not clear is whether the legislature intended to cartelize the industry. Yet this did happen. During the forty years between passage of the act of 1938 and the appointment of [Alfred] Kahn to the CAB chairmanship, the overall effect of board policies tended to freeze the industry more or less in its configuration of 1938. One policy, for example, forbade price competition. Instead the CAB ordinarily required that all carriers flying a certain route charge the same rates for the same class of customer. […] A second policy had to do with the CAB’s stance toward the entry of new companies into the business. Charged by Congress with the duty of ascertaining whether or not ‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity’ mandated that new carriers should receive a certificate to operate, the board often ruled simply that no applicant met these tests. In fact, over the entire history of the CAB, no new trunkline carrier had been permitted to join the sixteen that existed in 1938. And those sixteen, later reduced to ten by a series of mergers, still dominated the industry in the 1970s. All these companies… developed into large companies under the protective wing of the CAB. None wanted deregulation.”

Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (1987) p. 8:

“The government’s regulatory agencies have created or sustained private monopoly power more often than they have precluded or reduced it.  This result was exactly what  many interested parties desired from government regulation, though they would have been impolitic to have said so in public.”

Jeffrey M. Berry, The Interest Group Society (1989) p. 151:

“The ties between interest groups and [regulatory] agencies can become too close. A persistent criticism by political scientists is that agencies that regulate businesses are overly sympathetic to the industries they are responsible for regulating.  Critics charge that regulators often come from the businesses they regulate and thus naturally see things from an industry point of view.  Even if regulators weren’t previously involved in the industry, they have been seen as eager to please powerful clientele groups rather than have them complain to the White House or to the agency’s overseeing committees in Congress.”

Jonathan Emord, “The Electronic Press and the Industry Capture Movement,” Chapter 11 from: Freedom Technology and the First Amendment (1991), p. 146 (discussing the early history of radio licensing):

“The minutes of the First National Radio Conference in 1922 reveal that even at this early date, industry leader clamored for government limits on the number of licenses issued; they sought protection against entry by new licenses. For its part, the government desired control over the industry’s structure and programming content. Certain members of Congress, joined by [Secretary of Commerce Herbert] Hoover, agreed with broadcast industry leaders that the system of broadcasting in the United States would be brought within the federal government’s control. The classic rent/content control quid pro quo soon developed: in exchange for regulatory controls on industry structure and programming content, industry leaders would be granted restrictions on market entry that they wanted. These restrictions would ensure monopoly rents for licensees and would provide the government with assurance that the broadcast industry would not oppose regulatory controls.”

David Schoenbrod, Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People Through Delegation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 13:

“Agency heads are usually not apolitical and, indeed, concentrated interests often prevail more easily in an agency than they can in Congress. Effective participation in agency lawmaking usually requires expensive legal representation as well as close connections to members of Congress who will pressure the agency on one’s behalf. The agency itself is often closely linked with the industry it regulates. Not only large corporations, but also labor unions, cause-based groups, and other cohesive minority interests sometimes can use delegation to triumph over the interests of the larger part of the general public, which lacks the organization, finances, and know-how to participate as effectively in the administrative process.”

Douglass North, “Economic Performance through Time,” 84 American Economic Review 3, (1994), 359-363, at p. 360:

“Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules.”

P.A. McNutt, The Economics of Public Choice (1996), p. 105-6:

“The more successful the interest group becomes the greater the probability that it will be in a position to impact on the policy making process of successive governments. … Aspiring monopolists will retain lobbyists to assure a favourable outcome and devote resources to the acquisition of the monopoly right.  A government will more than likely grant monopoly privileges to various groups of politically influential people.  Cartels and anti-competitive behaviour will be maintained and politicians will react to the demands of the more vociferous and well organised interest groups.”

Andrew Odlyzko, “Privacy, Economics, and Price Discrimination on the Internet,” July 27, 2003, p. 12:

“It is now widely accepted that the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was not a pure triumph of the populist movement and its allies in the anti-railroad camp. The railway industry largely decided that regulation was in its best interests and acquiesced in and even encouraged government involvement. This is often portrayed as the insidious capture of the regulators by the industry they regulate. There is certainly much evidence to support this view.”

Lawrence Lessig,”Reboot the FCC,” Newsweek, December 23, 2008

“Economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead. The FCC is a perfect example. … With so much in its reach, the FCC has become the target of enormous campaigns for influence. Its commissioners are meant to be “expert” and “independent,” but they’ve never really been expert, and are now openly embracing the political role they play. Commissioners issue press releases touting their own personal policies. And lobbyists spend years getting close to members of this junior varsity Congress.”

Thomas Frank, “Obama and Regulatory Capture,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009:

“There are powerful institutions that don’t like being regulated. Regulation sometimes cuts into their profits and interferes with their business. So they have used the political process to sabotage, redirect, defund, undo or hijack the regulatory state since the regulatory state was first invented. The first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was set up to regulate railroad freight rates in the 1880s. Soon thereafter, Richard Olney, a prominent railroad lawyer, came to Washington to serve as Grover Cleveland’s attorney general. Olney’s former boss asked him if he would help kill off the hated ICC. Olney’s reply, handed down at the very dawn of Big Government, should be regarded as an urtext of the regulatory state: ‘The Commission… is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. … The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it.'”

Tim Wu, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), p. 308:

“Again and again in the histories I have recounted, the state has shown itself an inferior arbiter of what is good for the information industries. The federal government’s role in radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s, for instance, was nothing short of a disgrace…. Government’s tendency to protect large market players amounts to an illegitimate complicity … [particularly its] sense of obligation to protect big industries irrespective of their having become uncompetitive.”

David J. Farber & Gerald R. Faulhaber, “Net Neutrality: No One Will Be Satisfied, Everyone Will Complain,” The Atlantic, December 21, 2010:

“When the FCC asserts regulatory jurisdiction over an area of telecommunications, the dynamic of the industry changes. No longer are customer needs and desires at the forefront of firms’ competitive strategies; rather firms take their competitive battles to the FCC, hoping for a favorable ruling that will translate into a marketplace advantage. Customer needs take second place; regulatory “rent-seeking” becomes the rule of the day, and a previously innovative and vibrant industry becomes a creature of government rule-making.”

Holman Jenkins, “Let’s Restart the Green Revolution,” Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2011, (regarding how misguided agricultural & environmental policies are hurting consumers):

“When some hear the word ‘regulation,’ they imagine government rushing to the defense of consumers. In the real world, government serves up regulation to those who ask for it, which usually means organized interests seeking to block a competitive threat. This insight, by the way, originated with the left, with historians who went back and reconstructed how railroads in the U.S. concocted federal regulation to protect themselves from price competition. We should also notice that an astonishingly large part of the world has experienced an astonishing degree of stagnation for an astonishingly long time for exactly such reasons.”

Bruce Schneier, Liars & Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012), p. 204.

“There’s one competing interest that’s unique to enforcing institutions, and that’s the interest of the group the institution is supposed to watch over. If a government agency exists only because of the industry, then it is in its self-preservation interest to keep that industry flourishing. And unless there’s some other career path, pretty much everyone with the expertise necessary to become a regulator will be either a former or future employee of the industry with the obvious implicit and explicit conflicts. As a result, there is a tendency for institutions delegated with regulating a particular industry to start advocating the commercial and special interests of that industry. This is known as regulatory capture, and there are many examples both in the U.S. and in other countries.”

Bruce Owen, “Communication Policy Reform, Interest Groups, and Legislative Capture” (Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, January 19, 2012), SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 11-006, p. 2. Owen argues that it is the legislative branch, not the regulatory agencies themselves, where regulatory capture takes root:

“It is rather legislative oversight and budget committees and their chairs that are (willingly) captured by special interests in the first instance. One could equally say that legislators capture the special interests, seeking campaign funding The behavior of regulatory agencies simply reflect the preferences of their congressional masters. Regulators generally seek to please their committees, not to defy them.”

Mark Zachary Taylor, The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better Than Others at Science and Technology (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 213:

“political resistance to technological change can obstruct or warp otherwise ‘good’ S&T [science and technology] policy. Time and again, the losing interest groups created by scientific progress or technological change have been able to convince politicians to block, slow, or alter government support for scientific and technological progress. They support taxes, regulations, subsidies, procurement policies, spending, and so forth that obstruct progress in new S&T, and favor the status quo S&T. The losers and their political representatives have interfered with markets, public institutions and policies, and even the scientific debate itself–whatever they can to protect their interests.”

Additional readings:

• RegBlog – “A Resource List on Regulatory Capture and Reform” (2016)
• Frédéric Boehm, “Regulatory Capture Revisited – Lessons from Economics of Corruption” (2007)
• Ernesto Dal Bo, “Regulatory Capture: A Review,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2006)
• William W. Bratton & Joseph A. McCahery, “Regulatory Competition, Regulatory Capture, and Corporate Self-Regulation,” North Carolina Law Review 73 (1995), 1861.
• Slavisa Tasic, “Are Regulators Rational?” Instituto Bruno Leoni (October 2010)
• Michael E. Levine and Jennifer L. Forrence, “Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis” 6 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (1990), 167-198.
• William A. Jordan, “Producer Protection, Prior Market Structure and the Effects of Government Regulation,” Journal of Law and Economics 15, no. 1, (April 1972), 151-176.
• David Martimort, “The Life Cycle of Regulatory Agencies: Dynamic Capture and Transaction Costs,” Review of Economic Studies 66, no. 4 (October 1999), 929-947,
• J.J. Lafont & Jean Tirole, “The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture” 106 Quarterly Journal of Economics 4 (Nov. 1991) 1089-1127.
• Fred S. McChesney, “Rent Extraction and Rent Creation in the Economic Theory of Regulation,” Journal of Legal Studies 16 (1987) 101-118.
• Horace M. Gray, “The Passing  of the Public Utility Concept,” Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics 16, no. 1 (February 1940), 8-20.
• Jeffrey T. Macher, John W. Mayo, and Mirjam Schiffer, “The Influence of Firms on Government,” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11, no. 1 (2011).
• Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (1963)
• Lawrence G. Baxter, “Understanding Regulatory Capture: An Academic Perspective from the United States, in Stefano Pagliari, ed., The Making of Good Financial Regulation (2012), p. 31-39.
• an essay of mine from Jan. 2015 highlighting a particularly vivid example of capture at the FAA
• Ambrose Bierce’s satirical Devil’s Dictionary definitions of… Politics: “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” Legislator: “A person who goes to the capital of his country to increase his own; one who makes laws and money.”
• Finally, down below I’ve embedded a funny Tom Toles cartoon about regulatory capture that appeared in the Washington Post on January 20, 2011:

by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 5.11 (PDF)

Ten years ago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman lamented the “Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse:” the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors through regulation or the threat thereof. Friedman asked: “Is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft?” After yesterday’s FCC vote’s to open a formal “Net Neutrality” rule-making, we must ask whether the high-tech industry—or consumers—will benefit from inviting government regulation of the Internet under the mantra of “neutrality.”

The hatred directed at Microsoft in the 1990s has more recently been focused on the industry that has brought broadband to Americans’ homes (Internet Service Providers) and the company that has done more than any other to make the web useful (Google). Both have been attacked for exercising supposed “gatekeeper” control over the Internet in one fashion or another. They are now turning their guns on each other—the first strikes in what threatens to become an all-out, thermonuclear war in the tech industry over increasingly broad neutrality mandates. Unless we find a way to achieve “Digital Détente,” the consequences of this increasing regulatory brinkmanship will be “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) for industry and consumers.

New Fronts in the Neutrality Wars

The FCC’s proposed rules would apply to all broadband providers, including wireless, but not to Google or many other players operating in other layers of the Net who favor such broadband-specific rules. With this rulemaking looming, AT&T came after Google with letters to the FCC in late September and then another last week accusing the company of violating neutrality principles in their business practices and arguing that any neutrality rules that apply to ISPs should apply equally to Google’s panoply of popular services. In particular, AT&T accused Google of “search engine bias,” suggesting that only government-enforced neutrality mandates could protect consumers from Google’s supposed “monopolist” control.

The promise made yesterday by the FCC—to only apply neutrality principles to the infrastructure layer of the Net—is hollow and will ultimately prove unenforceable. The reality is that regulation always spreads. The march of regulation can sometimes be glacial, but it is, sadly, almost inevitable: Regulatory regimes grow but almost never contract. Indeed, in some ways, the prediction we made just three weeks ago is already coming true: The basic premise of neutrality regulation is already being proposed for other layers of the Internet—and not just by AT&T in retaliation. One need not agree with all of AT&T’s accusations to recognize that, whatever the FCC might say today, any large online intermediary with a popular platform potentially faces the threat of “network neutrality” mandates—because every platform is essentially a “network,” too. We’re not just talking about “search neutrality” (Google as well as Microsoft) but also about “device neutrality” (mobile handsets), “app neutrality” (Apple’s iTunes store, Facebook’s developers and Google’s Android mobile OS) and so on for social networking, email, instant messaging, online advertising, etc.

An open letter sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski this week by 28 founders and CEOs of leading application providers—including Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Craigslist, Sony and Twitter—speaks generally about the need for the FCC to enforce a “guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users.” While many of these signatories may have in mind ISPs as the network “gatekeepers” that need to be reined in by the FCC, the more successful among them are likely to find this letter used against them in the future—perhaps even by co-signatories—to advance a broad conception of what the government must do to ensure “openness” and “access” for platforms at all layers of the Internet.

Dumb Networks, Dumb Devices

The intellectual foundations for this regulatory creep have already been laid by groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge and law professors like Columbia’s Tim Wu, Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain and Seton Hall’s Frank Pasquale. As originally conceived by Tim Wu in 2003, “network neutrality” is not unique to broadband networks: “the basic economic problem found in the network neutrality debate (a form of ‘platform exclusion’ or ‘vertical foreclosure’) can be found in many other markets.” Indeed, Wu’s popular Net Neutrality FAQ declares:

The promotion of network neutrality is no different than the challenge of promoting fair evolutionary competition in any privately owned environment, whether a telephone network, operating system, or even a retail store. Government regulation in such contexts invariably tries to help ensure that the short-term interests of the owner do not prevent the best products or applications becoming available to end-users.

Zittrain picked up where Wu left off in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It—attacking, as the enemies of innovation, not ISPs but the supposedly “closed” platforms of Apple, TiVo and Microsoft’s Xbox. Zittrain warns that:

If there is a present worldwide threat to neutrality in the movement of bits, it comes not from restrictions on traditional Internet access that can be evaded using generative PCs, but from enhancements to traditional and emerging appliancized services that are not open to third-party tinkering.

Zittrain’s general solution is “API [Applications Programming Interface] neutrality:” If you create a platform (whether hardware or software) and begin allowing third-party contributions (“generativity”), you will lose all control over devices or applications that can run on that platform.

Those who offer open APIs on the Net in an attempt to harness the generative cycle ought to remain application-neutral after their efforts have succeeded, so all those who built on top of their interface can continue to do so on equal terms…. [N]etwork neutrality ought to be applied to the new platforms of Web services that, in turn, depend on Internet connectivity to function.

Clearly, if Zittrain and his allies have their way, the sort of neutrality mandates envisioned by the FCC or some Congressmen for ISPs will eventually cover companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and Amazon—all singled out by Zittrain in a New York Times op-ed in July:

If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents.

Frank Pasquale agrees on the need to restrain all “the dominant players at all layers of online life,” but focuses on his demand for a Federal Search Commission to control supposedly “biased” search results. While the FCC wrings its hands over “managed services” offered by ISPs, search engines are increasingly offering their own value-added services by “blending” algorithmically-derived results with special features like maps, videos, books or music depending on what the search term suggests the user is interested in. “Artificially” ensuring that these features appear on the first page of search results is clearly non-neutral, and necessarily involves search engines making ”managed” decisions as to whose features to include. Yet such features also clearly benefit users—dramatically improving the usefulness of search engines and helping to sustain struggling business models like music retailing.

But one need not resort to the works of “ivory tower” academics to see the slippery slope we’re already tumbling down with the infinitely elastic principle of “neutrality.” The prospect of the FCC gradually transforming into a “Federal Information Commission” becomes more apparent when one reads the Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry recently released by the FCC:

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

One can imagine how some might use such language to accuse Google of being in “a dominant cloud computing position” such that “the context of network neutrality” will be applied to cloud service (like Google Voice) to “modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces” through regulation. Indeed, that’s precisely what AT&T has suggested in recent letters (September 25 ^th and October 14 ^th) to the FCC.

AT&T’s partner Apple has already been the subject of such attacks for its decision to block the Google Voice app earlier this summer. The incident marked the beginning of open warfare between Google and AT&T/Apple. The FCC quickly jumped into the mix, first questioning how Apple manages its iTunes apps store for the iPhone, then questioning how Google runs its free Voice application. What legal authority the FCC has over either service is far from clear, but Apple seems to have gotten the message: It recently approved the Spotify music streaming app for the iPhone, which could be a serious competitive threat to the iTunes music store. This small incident highlights how easily regulators can impose their will through informal mechanisms like open-ended investigations even without clear authority to issue rules or bring enforcement actions. Yet none dare call it what it is: regulatory blackmail.

The Inevitability of Regulatory Capture

No doubt, other industry players will cheer on such regulatory harassment of the titans of tech—and maybe even demand more of it. Regulatory creep is driven by more than the self-interests of every bureaucracy to expand its own mission, budget and staff. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted, “Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture.” While lobbyists play an important role in defending business from government, all too many businesses naively look at government as a beast that can be tamed, trained, and turned to one’s own advantage, and often try to use the expanding regulatory apparatus to their own advantage or simply throw their competitors under the bus to save themselves. The result is a Hobbesian regulatory “war of all against all” within industry.

As Professor Alfred E. Kahn explained in his 2-volume opus, The Economics of Regulation, all regulation—however high-minded—is inevitably captured by special interests because:

When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition. […] Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.

If Internet regulation follows the same course as other industries, the FCC and/or lawmakers will eventually indulge calls by all sides to bring more providers and technologies “into the regulatory fold.” Clearly, this process has already begun. Even before rules are on the books, the companies that have made America the leader in the Digital Revolution are turning on each other in a dangerous game of brinksmanship, escalating demands for regulation and playing right into the hands of those who want to bring the entire high-tech sector under the thumb of government—under an Orwellian conception of “Internet Freedom” that makes corporations the real Big Brother, and government, our savior.

Toward a Less MAD World: Digital Détente

Sincere defenders of real Internet Freedom—that is, freedom from government techno-meddling—recognize that there will always be disputes over how companies deal with each other online across all layers of the Internet. The question is not whether we need a technical coordinating mechanism for handling such disputes. Someone should mediate conflicts over alleged deviations from abstract neutrality principles. But should that arbitrator be an inherently political body like FCC? Or should we instead look to truly independent, apolitical arbitrators like the Internet Engineering Task Force or collaborative efforts like the Network Neutrality Squad? Such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and fora need not have the power of law to be effective: The weight of their expert opinion, based on careful investigation of the facts, would likely resolve most disputes, because companies have strong reputational incentives to comply with reasoned rulings by truly neutral experts. And the white hot spotlight of public attention has a way of disciplining marketplace behavior as well.

Government would still have a role to play, of course, in enforcing antitrust laws where anticompetitive harm to consumers can be proven, and in enforcing the promises companies make to consumers. Ultimately, however, certain business models and technologies require non-neutral treatment, and the best remedy for concerns about non-neutrality is competition itself: In the high-tech sector more than any other, disruptive innovation makes it difficult for even the most successful companies to stay on top forever. Competitive entry—or even the threat of new entry—provides a powerful check on the power of so-called “gatekeepers,” but even more important is the prospect that today’s leaders will be tomorrow’s laggards: There’s little reason to think Google (search and advertising), Apple (smart phones and music) and Facebook (social networking) won’t someday find themselves playing catch-up, just as IBM (computers), Microsoft (desktop software and search), Friendster and MySpace (social networking), and Yahoo! and AOL (web portals) have had to do.

“Digital Détente” would require that all parties concede something and work constructively toward a more “peaceful” ( i.e., less regulatory) resolution. And yet, no Internet company wants to disarm unilaterally, foreswearing politics as a continuation of competition by other means. Only through multilateral disarmament could they break out of the current cycle of regulatory one-upmanship: If the companies in the Internet ecosystem could form a united front against increased government regulation and in favor of removing existing regulatory obstacles to competition, they could all return to their core competencies of creativity and innovation.

The alternative is a regulatory “nuclear winter”: high-tech titans turning their political fire on each other, catching innocent third parties in the cross-fire and bringing a dark cloud of government regulation over the entire Internet. Such increased regulation would stifle investment and innovation throughout the Internet ecosystem. Thus, it is consumers who will ultimately suffer most from the tech industry’s suicidal impulse, as their choices and digital lives are impoverished. For their sake, we hope all industry players will step back from the brink to avoid such high-tech mutually assured destruction.