Feasibility of Deregulation: A Public Choice Analysis

  • Michael A. Crew
  • Charles K. Rowley
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 3)


Deregulation is evident not just in the United States economy but also in much of Western Europe, notably the United Kingdom where there is an effective move toward privatization. 1 Following the abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board on January 1,1985, the deregulation of the airline industry in the United States is frequently cited as the most important example of successful deregulation. The divestiture by AT&T of its operating companies and the deregulation of several telecommunications services is perhaps the most significant example of the trend toward deregulation in the area of public utilities or natural monopoly. Similar developments are observed in the electricity and gas industries. Even water utilities with, arguably, the strongest case for being classed as a natural monopoly, are diversifying into other businesses.2 The holding company structure, with its obvious potential for allowing diversification, is becoming increasingly popular. One important difference between these industries and the airlines is that, while the trend is firmly toward deregulation and diversification, regulatory commissions still exist and still exercise regulatory oversight over these industries. Another important difference is that they still have some of the characteristics of natural monopolies, perhaps even of a sustainable nature. Contrast the above with, for example, taxicab services, which are bereft of natural monopoly characteristics and yet show little or no sign of deregulation.3


Interest Group Public Choice Chicago School Natural Monopoly Access Charge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker, Gary S. 1983. “A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 96 (3): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, Gary S. 1985. “Public Policies, Pressure Groups, and Dead Weight Costs.” Journal of Public Economics 28:325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, Gary S. 1988. “Letter to Charles K. Rowley.” March 31.Google Scholar
  4. Crandall, Robert W. 1988. “Surprises from Telephone Deregulation and the AT&T Divestiture.” American Economic Review 78 (no. 2, May): 323–327.Google Scholar
  5. Crew, Michael A. (ed.) 1987. Regulating Utilities in an Era of Deregulation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  6. Crew, Michael A., and Paul R. Kleindorfer. 1986. The Economics of Public Utility Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crew, Michael A., and Charles K. Rowley. 1988. “Toward a Public Choice Theory of Regulation.” Public Choice 57 (March): 49–67.Google Scholar
  8. Demsetz, Harold. 1968. “Why Regulate Utilities?” American Economic Review 11 (April): 55–66.Google Scholar
  9. Hayek, F.A. 1973. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Kolbe, A. Lawrence, James A. Read, and George R. Hall. 1984. The Cost of Capital. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCormick, R.E., W.F. Shughart III, and R.D. Tollison. 1988. “The Disinterest in Deregulation: Reply.” American Economic Review 78 (no. 1, March): 284–285.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Peltzman, Sam. 1976. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.” Journal of Law and Economics 19 (August): 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Posner, Richard A. 1969. “Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation.” Stanford Law Review 21 (February): 548–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Posner, Richard A. 1975. “The Social Costs of Monopoly Regulation.” Journal of Political Economy 83 (August): 807–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reder, M.W. 1982. “Chicago Economics: Permanence and Change.” Journal of Economic Literature 20 (no. 1, March): 1–38.Google Scholar
  17. Reich, R. 1987. Tales of a New America: The Anxious Liberal’s Guide to the Future. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Rowley, C.K., W.F. Shughart III, and R.D. Tollison. 1987. “Interest Groups and Deficits,” pp. 263–280. InDeficits, edited by J.R. Buchanan, C.K. Rowley, and R.D. Tollison. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Stigler, George J. 1971. “The Economic Theory of Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics 2 (no. 1, Spring): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stigler, George J. 1976. “X-istence of X-inefficiency.” American Economic Review 66 (no. 1, March): 3–21.Google Scholar
  21. Teal, Roger F., and Mary Berglund. 1987. “The Impact of Taxicab Deregulation in the U.S.A.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 21 (January): 37–56.Google Scholar
  22. Tullock, Gordon. 1967. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.” Western Economic Journal 5 (June): 224–232.Google Scholar
  23. Tullock, Gordon. 1975. “The Transition Gains.” Bell Journal of Economics 6 (Autumn): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williamson, Oliver E. 1976. “Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopoly—In General and with Respect to CATV.” Bell Journal of Economics (Spring): 73–104.Google Scholar
  25. Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. “Assessing Contract.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 1 (no. 1, Spring): 177–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Crew
  • Charles K. Rowley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations