Design for the Value of Regulation

  • Karen YeungEmail author
Reference work entry


Design has long been employed for regulatory purposes: by ancient civilisations (such as the ancient Egyptian practice of filling in of burial shafts to discourage looting) through to contemporary communities (such as the use by digital media providers of ‘digital rights management’ technology to prevent the unauthorised copying of digital data). But identifying what counts as a ‘regulatory’ purpose, however, is not entirely straightforward, largely due to the notorious lack of clarity concerning the meaning of the term ‘regulation’. Within regulatory studies literature, the use of design for regulatory purposes has not been the subject of extensive and comprehensive analysis, although particular kinds of design technologies have been the focus of considerable scholarly attention. Nevertheless, two important themes can be identified within regulatory scholarship that may be of considerable assistance in interrogating contemporary debates concerning design for regulation: first, analysis of the tools or instruments that may be employed to implement regulatory policy goals, and secondly, debates concerning the legitimacy of regulation in particular contexts, or the legitimacy of particular forms or facets of the regulatory enterprise. Both these themes will be explored in this paper through a discussion of the challenges associated with the effectiveness of design-based approaches to regulation and in the course of examining some of the controversies that have surrounded its use, with a particular focus on the implications of design for various dimensions of responsibility.

In so doing, I will make three arguments. First, I will argue that design can be usefully understood as an instrument for implementing regulatory goals. Secondly, I will suggest that a regulatory perspective provides an illuminating lens for critically examining the intentional use of design to promote specific social outcomes by showing how such a perspective casts considerable light on their implications for political, moral and professional accountability and responsibility. Thirdly, I will suggest that, because design can be employed for regulatory purposes (particularly in the case of harm-mitigation technologies) without any need for external behavioural change on the part of human actors, Julia Black’s definition of regulation as ‘a process involving the sustained and focused attempt to alter the behaviour of others according to defined standards or purposes with the intention of producing a broadly defined outcome or outcomes’ should be refined to enable all design-based instruments and techniques to fall within the sphere of regulatory inquiry, rather than being confined only to those design-based approaches that intentionally seek to alter the behaviour of others.


Regulatory instruments Tools of government Accountability Responsibility Regulation 


  1. Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin R (1995) Rules and government, Oxford socio-legal studies. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (2010) Introduction: regulation – the field and the developing agenda. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (2012) Understanding regulation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Balwin R (1995) Rules and government. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Black J (1997) Rules and regulators. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black J (2001) Decentring regulation: understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ‘post-regulatory’ world. Curr Leg Probl 54:103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black J (2007) Tensions in the regulatory state. Public Law 58Google Scholar
  9. Black J (2008) Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regul & Govern 2(2):137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bovens L (2008) The ethics of Nudge. In: Grune-Yanoff T, Hansson SO (eds) Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  11. Bovens M (2010) Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur Polit 33:946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brownsword R (2006) Code, control, and choice: why east is east and west is west. Legal Stud 25:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cabrera Escobar MA et al (2013) Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 13:1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cane P (2002) Responsibility in law and morality. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, UK, 31Google Scholar
  15. Citron DK (2008) Technological due process. Wash Univ Law Rev 85:1249Google Scholar
  16. Colgrove J (2006) State of immunity: the politics of vaccination in twentieth century America. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Connett P, Beck J, Spedding Micklem H (2010) The case against fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that kept it there. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VTGoogle Scholar
  18. Daintith T (1997) Regulation. In: Buxbaum R, Madl F (eds) International encyclopedia of comparative law, vol XVII, State and economy. JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), TübingenGoogle Scholar
  19. Department of Health (2000) An organisation with a memory. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickson DE (1999) Rapid response to: controversy erupts over reuse of ‘single use’ medical devices.
  21. Diver CS (1999) The optimal precision of administrative rules. In: Baldwin R, Hood C, Scott C (eds) A reader on regulation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Doorn N, van de Poel I (2012) Editor’s overview: moral responsibility in technology and engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 18:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duff R, Marshall S (2000) Benefits, burdens and responsibilities: some ethical dimensions of situational crime prevention. In: von Hirsch A, Garland D, Wakefield A (eds) Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 17Google Scholar
  24. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (2013) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified animals. EFSA J 11:3200Google Scholar
  25. Farah MJ et al (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci 5:421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster KR (2006) Engineering the brain. In: Illes J (ed) Neuroethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedson E (1973) Profession of medicine. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Ganley P (2002) Access to the individual: digital rights management systems and the intersection of informational and decisional privacy interests. Int J Law Inf Technol 10:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garde A (2007) The contribution of food labelling to the EU’s obesity prevention strategy. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 6:378Google Scholar
  30. Gardner J (2006) The mark of responsibility (with a postscript on accountability). In: Dowdle MW (ed) Public accountability. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Garland D (2000) Ideas, institutions and situational crime prevention. In: Garland D (ed) Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. Hart Publishing, Portland, Oregon, p 1Google Scholar
  32. Grabosky P, Braithwaite J (1985) Of manners gentle – enforcement strategies of Australian business regulatory agencies. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham C (1998) Is there a crisis in regulatory accountability? In: Baldwin R, Scott C, Hood C (eds) A reader on regulation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Harris J (2012) Chemical cognitive enhancement: is it unfair, unjust, discriminatory, or cheating for healthy adults to use smart drugs? In: Illes J, Sakakian BJ (eds) The Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, New York, 128Google Scholar
  36. Hawkins K (1984) Environment and enforcement. Clarendon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Hawkins K (2002) Law as last resort. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Medicines and Healthcare Devices Regulatory Authority (2006) Single use devices: implications and consequences of re-use. MHRA Device Bull DB2006(04)Google Scholar
  39. Hood C, Baldwin R, Rothstein H (2001) The government of risk. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutter B (1997) Compliance: regulation and environment, Oxford socio-legal studies. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Jelsma J (2003) Innovating for sustainability: involving users, politics and technology. Innovation 16:103Google Scholar
  42. Katyal NK (2002) Architecture as crime control. Yale Law J 111:1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kerr I (2010) Digital locks and the automation of virtue. In: Geist M (ed) From “radical extremism“ to “balanced copyright“: Canadian copyright and the digital agenda. Irwin Law, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  44. Kerr I, Bailey J (2004) The implications of digital rights management for privacy and freedom of expression. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 2:87Google Scholar
  45. Kohn LT et al (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Kwayke G, Provonost P, Makary M (2010) A call to go green in health care by reprocessing medical equipment. Acad Med 85:398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Levi-Faur D (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 598:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levy B, Spiller PT (1996) Regulators, institutions and commitment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyons MK (2011) Deep brain stimulation: current and future clinical applications. Mayo Found 86:662Google Scholar
  51. Mello M (2009) New York city’s war on fat. N Engl J Med 360:2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mello MM, Rosenthal MB (2008) Wellness programs and lifestyle discrimination – the legal limits. N Engl J Med 359:192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merry A, McCall Smith RA (2001) Errors, medicine and the law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ministerial Group on Nanotechnologies (2010) UK nanotechnologies strategy: small technologies, great opportunities. London, 28Google Scholar
  55. Morgan B, Yeung K (2007) An introduction to law and regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. BBC News (2013) Can genetically modified mosquitoes prevent disease in the US?.
  57. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Oke KB et al (2013) Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout reveals novel ecological interactions. Proc R Soc 280:20131047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Open Rights Group (2013) Campaign ‘stop opt-out’ “adult“ filtering. Accessed 25 Nov 2013
  60. Paul M et al (2011) Molecular pharming: future targets and aspirations. Hum Vaccin 7:375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peckham S (2012) Slaying sacred cows: is it time to pull the plug on water fluoridation? Crit Publ Health 22:159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raine A (2013) Dickson anatomy of violence. Allen Lane, London, pp 329–373Google Scholar
  63. Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. Brit Med J 320:768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reidenberg JR (1998) Lex informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Rev 76:553Google Scholar
  65. Rizzo MJ, Whitman DG (2009) Little brother is watching you: new paternalism on the slippery slopes. Ariz Law Rev 51:685Google Scholar
  66. Romero-Bosch A (2007) Lessons in legal history – eugenics and genetics. Mich St J Med Law 1:89Google Scholar
  67. Rostain T (2010) Self-regulatory authority, markets, and the ideology of professionalism. In: Baldwin R, Lodge M, Cave M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Schauer FS (1991) Playing by the rules. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Schlag P (2010) Nudge, choice architecture and libertarian paternalism. Mich Law Rev 108:913Google Scholar
  70. Scott C (2000) Accountability in the regulatory state. J Law Soc 27:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sempos CT, Park YK, Barton CN, Vanderveen JE, Yetley EA (2000) Effectiveness of food fortification in the United States: the case of pellagra. Am J Publ Health 90:727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith AF et al (2006) Adverse events in anaesthetic practice: qualitative study of definition, discussion and reporting. Brit J Anaesth 96:715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stier DD, Mercy JA, Kohn M (2007) Injury prevention. In: Goodman RA et al (eds) Law in public health practice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2009) Nudge. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. The Independent (2013) It is a slow metabolism after all: Scientists discover obesity gene. Accessed 13 Nov 2013
  76. The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh (2013) ‘GM chickens that don’t transmit bird flu’. Accessed 13 Nov 2013
  77. The Rt Honourable David Cameron MP (2013) The internet and pornography: prime minister calls for action. Accessed 25 Nov 2013
  78. Toft B (2001) External inquiry into the adverse incident that occurred at Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  79. Wadden TA, Brownell KD, Foster GD (2002) Obesity: responding to the global epidemic. J Consult Clin Psychol 70:510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. White MD (2010) Behavioural law and economics: the assault on the consent, will and dignity. In: Gaus G, Favor C, Lamont J (eds) Essays on philosophy, politics & economics: integration and common research projects. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  81. Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109:121Google Scholar
  82. Yeung K (2004) Securing compliance. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  83. Yeung K (2008) Towards an understanding of regulation by design. In: Brownsword R, Yeung K (eds) Regulating technology. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  84. Yeung K (2011a) The regulatory state. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) Oxford handbook on regulation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  85. Yeung K (2011b) Can we employ design-based regulation while avoiding brave new world. Law Innov Technol 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yeung K (2012) Nudge as fudge. Mod Law Rev 75:122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yeung K (2016) Is design-based regulation legitimate?’. In: Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds) The Oxford handbook on the law and regulation of technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  88. Yeung K, Dixon-Woods M (2010) Design-based regulation and patient safety: a regulatory studies perspective. Soc Sci Med 71:502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zittrain J (2007) Tethered appliances, software as service, and perfect enforcement. In: Brownsword R, Yeung K (eds) Regulating technologies. Hart Publishing, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Technology, Ethics, Law and Society (TELOS), The Dickson Poon School of LawKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations