which explains why government regulation is necessary in a mixed-market economy? government regulation protects constitutional rights, safety, and fairness. government regulation protects property rights, safety, and profits. government regulation protects constitutional rights, profits, and fairness. government regulation protects property rights, safety, and business owners.
James
Guys, does anyone know the answer?
get which explains why government regulation is necessary in a mixed-market economy? government regulation protects constitutional rights, safety, and fairness. government regulation protects property rights, safety, and profits. government regulation protects constitutional rights, profits, and fairness. government regulation protects property rights, safety, and business owners. from EN Bilgi.
Which of the following explains why government regulation is necessary for a mixed
Answer to: Which of the following explains why government regulation is necessary for a mixed-market economy? a) Government regulation protects...
Administrative law
Which of the following explains why government regulation is necessary for a mixed-market...
Which of the following explains why government regulation is necessary for a mixed-market... Question:
Which of the following explains why government regulation is necessary for a mixed-market economy?
a) Government regulation protects constitutional rights, safety, and fairness.
b) Government regulation protects property rights, safety, and profits.
c) Government regulation protects constitutional rights, profits, and fairness.
d) Government regulation protects property rights, safety, and business owners.
Government Regulation:
Government regulation refers to the rules and guidelines used to limit or control social behaviors. For instance, the government may implement regulations that aim to limit environmental pollution or child labor. Moreover, a market that does not have government regulation may face different inefficiencies, including high prices and lower quality goods and services.
Answer and Explanation:
Become a Study.com member to unlock this answer! Create your account
View this answer
The correct answer is choice a) Government regulation protects constitutional rights, safety, and fairness.
A mixed market economy refers to a type...
See full answer below.
Become a member and unlock all Study Answers
Start today. Try it now
Create an account
Ask a question
Our experts can answer your tough homework and study questions.
Ask a question
Search Answers
Learn more about this topic:
Governmental Regulation & Deregulation of the Economy
from
Chapter 10 / Lesson 11
9.9K
Governments regulate the economy often to ensure it is as fair as possible. Learn about governmental regulation, including why it's done, the impact it has on institutions, and the controversy surrounding financial regulation and deregulation.
Related to this Question
Related Answers Related Lessons Related Courses
Suppose the 1996 federal welfare legislation...
Briefly discuss the role of government in...
Explain the concept of capture theory. What...
Should the government be rationing radio wave...
Explore our homework questions and answers library
Browse by subject
Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of
BRIEFING ROOM
Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy
JULY 09, 2021 •
PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy.
A fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been a cornerstone of the American economy, while excessive market concentration threatens basic economic liberties, democratic accountability, and the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses, startups, and consumers.
The American promise of a broad and sustained prosperity depends on an open and competitive economy. For workers, a competitive marketplace creates more high-quality jobs and the economic freedom to switch jobs or negotiate a higher wage. For small businesses and farmers, it creates more choices among suppliers and major buyers, leading to more take-home income, which they can reinvest in their enterprises. For entrepreneurs, it provides space to experiment, innovate, and pursue the new ideas that have for centuries powered the American economy and improved our quality of life. And for consumers, it means more choices, better service, and lower prices.
Robust competition is critical to preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.
Yet over the last several decades, as industries have consolidated, competition has weakened in too many markets, denying Americans the benefits of an open economy and widening racial, income, and wealth inequality. Federal Government inaction has contributed to these problems, with workers, farmers, small businesses, and consumers paying the price.
Consolidation has increased the power of corporate employers, making it harder for workers to bargain for higher wages and better work conditions. Powerful companies require workers to sign non-compete agreements that restrict their ability to change jobs. And, while many occupational licenses are critical to increasing wages for workers and especially workers of color, some overly restrictive occupational licensing requirements can impede workers’ ability to find jobs and to move between States.
Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard for small family farms to survive. Farmers are squeezed between concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries — seed, fertilizer, feed, and equipment suppliers — and concentrated market power in the channels for selling agricultural products. As a result, farmers’ share of the value of their agricultural products has decreased, and poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, and other agricultural workers struggle to retain autonomy and to make sustainable returns.
The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, but today a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to extract monopoly profits, and to gather intimate personal information that they can exploit for their own advantage. Too many small businesses across the economy depend on those platforms and a few online marketplaces for their survival. And too many local newspapers have shuttered or downsized, in part due to the Internet platforms’ dominance in advertising markets.
Americans are paying too much for prescription drugs and healthcare services — far more than the prices paid in other countries. Hospital consolidation has left many areas, particularly rural communities, with inadequate or more expensive healthcare options. And too often, patent and other laws have been misused to inhibit or delay — for years and even decades — competition from generic drugs and biosimilars, denying Americans access to lower-cost drugs.
In the telecommunications sector, Americans likewise pay too much for broadband, cable television, and other communications services, in part because of a lack of adequate competition. In the financial-services sector, consumers pay steep and often hidden fees because of industry consolidation. Similarly, the global container shipping industry has consolidated into a small number of dominant foreign-owned lines and alliances, which can disadvantage American exporters.
The problem of economic consolidation now spans these sectors and many others, endangering our ability to rebuild and emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a vibrant, innovative, and growing economy. Meanwhile, the United States faces new challenges to its economic standing in the world, including unfair competitive pressures from foreign monopolies and firms that are state-owned or state-sponsored, or whose market power is directly supported by foreign governments.
We must act now to reverse these dangerous trends, which constrain the growth and dynamism of our economy, impair the creation of high-quality jobs, and threaten America’s economic standing in the world.
This order affirms that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony — especially as these issues arise in labor markets, agricultural markets, Internet platform industries, healthcare markets (including insurance, hospital, and prescription drug markets), repair markets, and United States markets directly affected by foreign cartel activity.
Regulation and the Economy
The Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board (CED) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, business-led public policy organization that delivers well-researched analysis and reasoned solutions to our nation’s most critical issues.
REPORTS / FISCAL HEALTH
Regulation & the Economy
Regulation & the Economy The Relationship & How to Improve It
A Policy Statement by the Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board
September 27, 2017
Regulation is a major way in which government influences the U.S. market economy. The scope of government regulations is vast and reaches all sectors of the economy and all aspects of our daily lives. But what exactly is regulation?
Index
Introduction: What Is Regulation—and How Can Regulatory Policies Work to Work Well?
An Overview of U.S. Regulatory Policy
How Does Regulation Affect the Economy?
How to Build (and Maintain) Better Regulation
CED’s Interpretation of Progress and Challenges Remaining
Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Summary of CED Recommendations
Appendices Endnotes
Introduction: What Is Regulation—and How Can Regulatory Policies Work to Work Well?
Regulation is a major way in which government influences the U.S. market economy. The scope of government regulations is vast and reaches all sectors of the economy and all aspects of our daily lives. But what exactly is regulation?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides this very general and simple definition of regulation: an official rule or law that says how something should be done1
Regulatory policy scholars Susan Dudley2 and Jerry Brito elaborate on that definition this way:
Regulations, also called administrative laws or rules, are the primary vehicles by which the federal government implements laws and agency objectives. They are specific standards or instructions concerning what individuals, businesses, and other organizations can or cannot do.
Market economies need clear rules to function efficiently. Without a legal framework establishing and enforcing property rights and the “rules of the game,” our free enterprise system could not exist. Regulations issued by the executive branch affect every aspect of our lives. From the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep, regulations influence what you do. Yet most people know very little about the impact of regulations or the process by which they are produced.3
Recently, the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has done considerable research on regulatory policy. Their overarching perspective is that regulations are often necessary for a well-functioning, market-based, capitalist society, but they do not always live up to public expectations or achieve their social goals. In other words, regulations in practice do not always make things better:
Regulations are indispensable to the proper function of economies and societies. They create the “rules of the game” for citizens, business, government and civil society. They underpin markets, protect the rights and safety of citizens and ensure the delivery of public goods and services. At the same time, regulations are not costless. Businesses complain that red tape holds back competitiveness while citizens complain about the time that it takes to fill out government paperwork. Moreover, designing and enforcing regulations also requires resources for government and public administrations. Regulations can also have unintended costs, when they become outdated or inconsistent with the achievement of policy objectives. The 2008 financial crisis—which resulted in part from poorly designed regulatory regimes and the uneven enforcement of existing regulations—and the ensuing and ongoing economic downturn starkly illustrate the potential consequences of regulatory failure.4
When CED last spoke on regulatory policy, we, like the OECD, recognized the necessity of regulation but noted how it often fails to serve its role well:
Government regulation of economic and social activities permeates our lives. While regulation in many instances yields important public benefits, regulations often are imposed on individuals and organizations with too little thought or analysis of what is gained in comparison with the losses incurred in time, money, indecision, and productivity...Further, the growth of government involvement in the market system sometimes constrains our ability to achieve fundamental economic and social goals.5
Indeed, though government intervention in the marketplace is often justified, it does not always achieve its “first-best” textbook ideal. There is an elegant efficiency in the market price system, allowing resources to flow naturally to their highest-valued uses as signaled by suppliers and demanders; but still there is a role for government where markets fail to price goods and services to reflect social values. Where government intervention can help “correct” prices, whether through regulations or fiscal (tax and spending) policies, government will improve economic and social outcomes. This is not a blanket endorsement of government intervention, however, as public policies are often imperfect “fixes” that can worsen, rather than improve, outcomes. A worthy government role does not mean we should hand over full control of markets to government. The free market may still be superior to government in getting most of the prices and flows of resources right.
It follows that government regulations are more likely to improve rather than impede the performance of the economy when they adhere to broad economic principles rather than impose narrow statutory rules. Principles-based regulatory approaches have the advantage of being more adaptable to changes in economic conditions and economic opportunities, as new markets develop in the economy and particular businesses rise or fall in response to appropriate price signals. Admittedly, the lack of specificity in principles-based regulations can allow unintended behavior to be characterized as “compliant.” On the other hand, whereas a highly prescriptive rules-based approach makes it harder for businesses and regulators to “fudge” compliance, such brighter-line regulations can become so specific and tailored to the situation of the moment that they can easily become obsolete or even counter-productive—particularly from a public interest or societal perspective—as the economy evolves. They can also be specifically designed to favor incumbent businesses as well (supporting “cronyism”), to the detriment of new business formation and the innovation and productivity growth of the overall economy.
Guys, does anyone know the answer?