CIAO DATE: 10/2014
July 2011
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis
The central aim of this work is to try and detail the argument that governmental regulation can move beyond the public versus private policy debate. This argument depends largely on Kant‟s and J.S. Mill‟s works regarding the harm principle (see Ripstein, 2006; and Mertens, 2007, for further reading). In con-temporary political philosophy, we see the focus turning to equality and jus-tice within the framework of international peace and individual sovereignty (see Krasner, 1988; Guardiola-Rivera, 2010; Campbell, 2010; and Smith, 2008 for more). This discourse is central to my argument because I feel the litera-ture supports my point that accountability, transparency and the right to question the public and private spheres wheresoever they may cause harm to be a right for any individual. It might be that, for many, this is simply part of democratic governance (see Hanberger, 2009; Meijer, 2009; Steffek, 2010; Tallberg, Uhlin and Bexell, 2010). This, in cumulative terms, manifests as the right for the pluralities composing citizenries to collectively challenge public and private industries and institutions if their activities cause harm or are sus-pect. This in turn may lead to the expectation that our representatives or leaders in civil society should champion this democratic right. If we do not have this right, the public and private spheres may operate in the dark: away from accountability, away from transparency, and away from popular knowledge and scrutiny.
Resource link: COMPETITIVE REGULATION: Stepping Outside the Public/Private Policy Debate [PDF] - 2.0M