What is it about?
We attempt to unpick the extent to whcih the increased charity regulation in different jurisdictions is driven by public interest or public choice theories. Public interest theory arguments suggest that regulation could increase philanthropy through enhancing public trust and confidence in charities. On the other hand, public choice theory argues that regulators seek to maximize political returns, ‘manage’ charity-government relationships, and reduce potential regulatory capture.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Analysing different regulatory regimes using these two regulatory theories helps us to perceive the relative costs and benefits of different regulatory regimes which should reduce regulatory inefficiency and balance accountability and transparency demands against benefits charities receive from regulation. Also, by reviewing the different regimes, we can see how the variety of charity regulation reflects the culture within countries as well as regional differences.
Perspectives
We were interested in whether charity regulators would converge, given the need to be more efficient and due to the international nature of some charities. Yet we found that there is quite a deal of convergence and that the theories behind regulation also give disparate answers to 'why regulate' among these jurisdictions. We hope these findings are helpful to charity regulators in the eight jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland, US and Canada, Japan and China and Australia and New Zealand) and elsewhere.
Professor Carolyn J Cordery
Victoria University of Wellington
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Charity registration and reporting: a cross-jurisdictional and theoretical analysis of regulatory impact, Public Management Review, October 2017, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1383717.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
