The Regulatory Interactions of Front-Line Environmental Regulators
| Author | Michelle C. Pautz and Sara R. Rinfret |
| Profession | Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Dayton/Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Montana |
| Pages | 55-78 |
55
Chapter 3:
The Regulatory
Interactions of Front-Line
Environmental Regulators†
Michelle C. Pautz* and Sara R. Rinfret**
It is often presumed that regulatory interactions are fairly straightfor-
ward. A regulator arrives at a facility with knowledge of the applicable
regulatory requirements and begins check ing o compliance with those
requirements, thereby conducting inspections in a uniform and scripted
manner. Yet, the reality of these inspections in environmental policy is fa r
less straightforward. Consider the following scenario which demonstrates the
complexities a regulator encounters in a typical site visit. A waste regulator
arrives at a landll that has been operating for decades, without any major
issues regarding tra c, noise, or any of the other usual complaints about a
landll. is regulator has been assigned to this facility for the last ve years,
and this facility has operators that know their job and rigorously pursue com-
pliance with environmental regulations.
Upon a rrival for a routine inspection, the regulator notices that there
is a n unusually hi gh level of erosion—enough to jeopardize the land ll’s
compliance with its permit requirements. Just as the reg ulator is ab out to
bring up the erosion he has noticed, the faci lity contac t brings it up gloom-
ily. e facilit y contact a shamedly ad mits that the landl l has been dea l-
ing with a n unusua l rate of erosion, and he has been worr ying about it
constant ly as h is faci lity ha s been doing its be st to tr y and mitigate it. e
likely culprit of the erosion is the unsea sonable rain the region is experienc-
ing. With this information, a va riety of questions arise. What regulatory
approach should t he regulator take? More specica lly, should the reg ulator
be strict w ith t his facilit y that ha s always been in compliance? Or should
† is chapter is taken from M P S R, T L E
R: T P S R (Routledge 2013). It is reprinted with permis-
sion of Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, a division of Informa plc.
* Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Dayton.
** Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Montana.
56 Next Generation Environmental Compliance and Enforcement
the reg ulator take into account t he unusual circumst ances along with the
facilit y’s compliance record?
is scenario demonstrates t hat compliance is far more complicated tha n
a simple check box as to whether a facility is in or out of compliance. e
regulatory enforcement approach a regulator uses may have signicant impli-
cations for the implementation of policy.1 Here, we focus on the regulatory
style of st ate environmental reg ulators. ese state regulators are frequently
neglected in larger examinations of the environmental regu latory condition
in the United States; as such, we refer to the 1,238 state regulators collectively
as t he Lilliputians of environmental policy. Although the term Lilliputian,
borrowed from Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, often carries with it a
pejorative connotation, we use it in a positive manner, much the way Good-
sell (2004) and Wamsley et al. (1990) use the term “bureaucrat.”2
e following pages u npack the concept of regulatory enforcement styles
and consider the preferences of the Lilliputians; d we also demonstrate
the complexities associated with the existing categorizations of regulatory
enforcement st yles. As a result of these complexities, we oer new termi-
nology (precision-based and intention-based regulatory enforcement styles)
to better u nderstand the styles of the state environmental regulators in this
study. e data demonstrate that the Lilliputians ultimately embrace a mix
of precision-based and intention-based enforcement styles. e driving inu-
ences on their regulatory styles are determined by the state in which they
work, media, time spent in the oce, their age, and t he level of trust that
they have in a regulated facility. We argue t hat the mixture of a precision-
based and intention-based enforcement st yle bodes well for discussions of
Next Generation environmental policy and helps dispel the sometimes nega-
tive caricatures of front-line workers.
I. Significance of the Lilliputians
Even though environmental reg ulators are understudied, they are signi-
cant. As Lipsky (1980) correctly notes, the work and experiences of front-line
workers “occupy a critical position in America n society” since the actions
of these individuals constitute agency policy.3 Riccucci (2005) reminds
1 Peter J. May & Søren Winter, Regulatory Enforcement Styles and Compliance in E C-
: B R R 222-244 (Christine Parker & Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen
eds., Edward Elgar Publishing 2011).
2 C T. G, A C B: A P A P (CQ Press
2004); G L. W ., R P A (Sage Publications 1990).
3 M L, S-L B: D I P S
3 (New York: Russell Sage Foundation 1980).
To continue reading
Request your trial