The paper explores theories of regulation by examining their consistency and fit with the development of smart regulation, better regulation and self‐regulation. It achieves this through the use of two case studies. Building control is offered as an example of deregulation, the 1980s approach to “smart” regulation, whilst the Primary Authority scheme is provided as an example of current thinking. The paper develops an explanation of how these shifting regulatory architectures have generated current views of how to manage the issue of regulation and then proposes a framework to explain how professional and local authority regulation works and can be made to work better.
Analytical, as a preliminary to testing theoretical constructs by further empirical research. The paper examines case studies to draw out the drivers for regulatory practice and then establishes a model from this as the basis for further work.
The use of Giddens's concept of Late Modernity is useful in describing the loss of authority by traditional regulators and explaining the adoption of “smart” regulation by others seeking to dominate regulation. A lack of theoretical definition as to what is meant by smart regulation can be countered by the development of constructs, such as the regulatory “triptych” developed here.
The development of a structure for professional and local authority regulation allows researchers to place developments in smart regulation in context. It also allows those newly emerging dominant authorities, in Giddens's terms, to be encouraged to develop a higher quality form of regulation.
The paper generates a grounded set of concepts that have explanatory efficacy.
