The Psychology Of Overregulation

We’ve been on a bit of a tear today about the politics of regulation. So why quit when we’re having so much fun with it? As we noted today, calls for additional regulation often depend on a double standard under which market process are characterized by imperfect information and dominated by self-interest while regulatory processes are somehow viewed as well-informed and public-minded. Why are people so attracted to regulatory solutions when despite the lack of evidence for concrete benefits?

David Hirshleifer has a delightful paper that sees through one prominent anti-market double standard and suggests an answer—several in fact—about why regulation is unduly attractive. His approach is simple. He points out that the findings of behavioral psychology—that people are often irrational, biased and ill-informed—apply to regulators as well as investors and consumers.

“The psychological attraction theory of regulation holds that regulation is the result of psychological biases on the part of political participants and regulators, and the evolution of regulatory ideologies that exploit these biases,” he writes.

The cumulative effect of these biases is overregulation. “[Since the universe of possible tempting regulations is unlimited, the theory predicts a general tendency for overregulation, and for rules to accrete over time like barnacles, impeding economic progress. The theory also predicts occasional drastic increases in regulation in response to market downturns or disruption.”

You can download the paper here. (Hat tip to Ribstein.)

Comments

Posted by Bugs Meany, Feb 04, 2008 4:00PM

At what point will comments take less than 4 minutes to post?

Posted by Anonymous, Feb 04, 2008 4:04PM

This is boring. I'd rather read about how Charles Gasparino eats deli meat between segments being taped on CNBC. (He keeps the meat in his jacket pocket.)

Posted by 1-2, Feb 04, 2008 4:12PM

Great pass-along Carney. I don't know if anyone is going to read this but pretty much every paragraph can be pinned to one point or another from my ramblings on this board.

Case in point: my argument today that borrowers, not lenders, should bear the regulatory burden of proving they can repay loans because it makes the costs (time, and other transaction costs) more explicit to consumers instead of letting them mentally "bundle" the losses.

Posted by Anal_yst, Feb 04, 2008 4:27PM

@ 1-2

Fair enough, something like "ok you're credit score is 580, your 25 and saying you make $300,000/year, you have given me no documentation to prove it, and you want a $1,000,000 loan? That'll be $7,500 for our processing fees, thank you have a nice day".

I imagine such transactions wouldn't help win (sh!tty) business, and hence in the current compensation scheme there is a disincentive, but it would certainly reduce the # of crap loans sold.

Posted by TheUnrepentantGunner, Feb 04, 2008 4:36PM

where can I sign up for that offer Anal_yst?

heck... with that kinda offer i might as well go all the way with my fraud, buy a 200k house instead of a mil, and use the other 800k and hope i beat 8% a year. if i can do 18% (and why not just get really aggressive with my holdings), i figure i have to pay taxes on the 18%, but get a partial offset from the mortgage interest... i could make... errm, 60-70k a year after taxes

maybe ill keep my day job.

Posted by Anal_yst, Feb 04, 2008 5:01PM

In hindsight that was an incredibly bad example, and the result of careful consideration it was not.

A better idea would be to modify the compensation of brokers (the companies and the individual brokers themselves), to be based of not just volume, but quality as well. Of course, if people stop buying crap securities which hold the crap mortgages, they won't be able to sell em so that'd take care of the quality issue right there. Butt, let's be honest, this is not going to happen anytime soon, there is always a greater fool, just waiting, nay, begging to be parted from his/her money.

Posted by Millionaire, Feb 05, 2008 5:02AM

We are suppose to live in a Free country that is now plagued with over regulation. Isn't this the reason so many of our fore fathers left old europe for the new world?

Posted by , Feb 05, 2008 7:58AM

yes exactly they left because it was too difficult to take out a mortgage

Posted by , Feb 05, 2008 8:25AM

Why be content with displacing the regulatory burden ? Ron Paul will cut immensely improve the life and prospects of all Americans by abolishing regulation altogether.

Also, just think of how your valuable time could be better employed (for you or your employer) when regulation becomes a non issue.

It'll be one of those things we'll look back on and say: "however did we get by before Ron Paul ?"

Post Your Comment