{{Short description|Process of removing or reducing state regulations}}
'''Deregulation''' is the process of removing or reducing [[state regulation]]s, typically in the economic sphere. It is the repeal of governmental [[Economic regulation|regulation of the economy]]. It became common in advanced industrial economies in the 1970s and 1980s, as a result of new trends in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation, and the risk that regulatory agencies would be controlled by the regulated industry to its benefit, and thereby hurt consumers and the wider economy. Economic regulations were promoted during the [[Gilded Age]], in which [[progressive era|progressive]] reforms were claimed as necessary to limit [[externalities]] like corporate abuse, unsafe [[child labor]], [[monopolization]], and [[pollution]], and to mitigate boom and bust cycles. Around the late 1970s, such reforms were deemed burdensome on economic growth and many politicians espousing [[neoliberalism]] started promoting deregulation.
The stated rationale for deregulation is often that fewer and simpler regulations will lead to raised levels of competitiveness, therefore higher [[Productivity (economics)|productivity]], more efficiency and lower prices overall.
Time to approval increases [[compliance cost]]s and tends to increase [[corruption]].[{{cite journal | last1=Djankov | first1=S. | last2=La Porta | first2=R. | last3=Lopez-de-Silanes | first3=F. | last4=Shleifer | first4=A. | title=The Regulation of Entry | journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics | volume=117 | issue=1 | date=2002 | issn=0033-5533 | doi=10.1162/003355302753399436 | pages=1–37 | url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.1162/003355302753399436 | access-date=2026-09-03}}] Faster regulatory decisions tend to be supported by public polls,[{{cite web | title=Public attitudes towards development, Polling report, Opinium and Curia | url=https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Public-Attitudes-Towards-Development-Opinium-Curia-Polling-Report.pdf | access-date=2026-09-03}}][{{cite web | last=Commission | first=European | title=Eurobarometer | website=European Union | url=https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3358 | access-date=2026-09-03}}] while support for weaker regulatory outcomes varies by sector.[{{cite web | title=Americans prefer more, not less, regulation of dozens of major industries | website=YouGov | date=2024 | url=https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/50561-americans-prefer-more-regulation-of-major-industries-poll | access-date=2026-09-03}}] Opposition to deregulation may involve apprehension regarding [[pollution|environmental pollution]][{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/0921-8009(94)90017-5|title=An ecological-economic assessment of deregulation of international commerce under GATT|journal=Ecological Economics|volume=9|pages=73–92|year=1994|last1=Daly|first1=Herman|last2=Goodland|first2=Robert|issue=1 |bibcode=1994EcoEc...9...73D }}] and environmental quality standards (such as the removal of regulations on hazardous materials), financial uncertainty, and [[Competition law|constraining monopolies]].
[[Regulatory reform]] is a parallel development alongside deregulation. Regulatory reform refers to organized and ongoing programs to review regulations with a view to minimizing, simplifying, and making them more cost-effective. Such efforts, given impetus by the [[Regulatory Flexibility Act]] of 1980, are embodied in the United States Office of Management and Budget's [[Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs]], and the United Kingdom's [[Better Regulation Commission]]. [[Cost–benefit analysis]] is frequently used in such reviews. In addition, there have been regulatory innovations, usually suggested by economists, such as [[emissions trading]].
Deregulation can be distinguished from [[privatization]], which transfers state-owned businesses to the [[private sector]].
== Arguments for deregulation ==
Many economists have concluded that a trend towards deregulation will increase economic welfare in the long term and a sustainable free market system. Regarding the electricity market, contemporary academic Adam Thierer, "The first step toward creating a free market in electricity is to repeal the federal statutes and regulations that hinder electricity competition and [[consumer choice]]."[{{citation
|url = http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg1169.cfm
|title = A Five-Point Checklist For Successful Electricity Deregulation Legislation
|first = Adam D.
|last = Thierer
|publisher = [[The Heritage Foundation]]
|issue = 1169
|date = 13 April 1998
|access-date = 2009-04-26
|url-status = unfit
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090404155331/http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1169.cfm
|archive-date = 4 April 2009
}}] This viewpoint stretches back centuries. Classical economist [[Adam Smith]] argued the benefits of deregulation in his 1776 work, ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'':[Without trade restrictions] the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man...is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.... The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty [for which] no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.[{{Cite book|title=The Wealth of Nations|last=Smith|first=Adam|publisher=James Decker|year=1801|location=Paris|pages=96}}]
Scholars who theorize that deregulation is beneficial to society often cite what is known as the Iron Law of Regulation, which states that all regulation eventually leads to a net loss in social welfare.[{{cite journal |id={{ProQuest|1282085602}} |last1=Green |first1=Kesten |title=Should government force companies to be responsible? |journal=Review - Institute of Public Affairs |location=Melbourne |volume=64 |issue=4 |date=December 2012 |pages=44–45 }}][{{cite journal |last1=Armstrong |first1=J. Scott |last2=Green |first2=Kesten C. |title=Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies |journal=Journal of Business Research |date=October 2013 |volume=66 |issue=10 |pages=1922–1927 |doi=10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.014 |citeseerx=10.1.1.663.508 |s2cid=145059055 }}]
== Arguments against deregulation ==
Critics of [[economic liberalization]] and deregulation cite the benefits of regulation, and believe that certain regulations do not distort markets and allow companies to continue to be [[Competition (economics)|competitive]], or according to some, grow in competition.[{{cite book |last1=Cali |first1=Massimiliano |last2=Ellis |first2=Karen |last3=te Velde |first3=Dirk Willem |title=The contribution of services to development and the role of trade liberalisation and regulation |date=2008 |publisher=Overseas Development Institute |location=London |isbn=978-0-85003-892-7 |url=https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94965/wp298.pdf }}{{page needed|date=December 2022}}] Much as the state plays an important role through issues such as [[property rights]], appropriate regulation is argued by some to be "crucial to realise the benefits of service liberalisation".[{{citation
|url=http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html
|title=The Electricity Deregulation Con Game
|first=Sharon
|last=Beder
|journal=[[PR Watch]]
|volume=10
|issue=3; 3rd quarter 2003
|access-date=26 April 2009
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090324051222/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html
|archive-date=24 March 2009
}}]
[[William K. Black]] says that inappropriate deregulation helped create a criminogenic environment in the [[Savings and loan association|savings and loan industry]], which attracted opportunistic [[control fraud]]s like [[Charles Keating]], whose massive political campaign contributions were used successfully to further remove regulatory oversight. The combination substantially delayed effective governmental action, thereby substantially increasing the losses when the fraudulent [[Ponzi scheme]]s finally collapsed and were exposed. After the collapse, regulators in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) were finally allowed to file thousands of criminal complaints that led to over a thousand felony convictions of key Savings and Loan insiders.{{sfn|Black|2005|p=}} By contrast, between 2007 and 2010, the OCC and OTS combined made zero criminal referrals; Black concluded that elite financial fraud has effectively been decriminalized.[{{cite journal |last= Black |first= Bill |author-link= William K. Black |date= December 28, 2010 |title= 2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud |journal= Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute |url= http://www.nextnewdeal.net/2011-will-bring-more-de-facto-decriminalization-elite-financial-fraud |access-date= September 7, 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140715051234/http://www.nextnewdeal.net/2011-will-bring-more-de-facto-decriminalization-elite-financial-fraud |archive-date= July 15, 2014 |url-status= dead }}]
Economist [[Jayati Ghosh]] is of the opinion that deregulation is responsible for increasing price volatility on the commodity market. This particularly affects people and economies in developing countries. More and more homogenization of financial institutions which may also be a result of deregulation turns out to be a major concern for small-scale producers in those countries.[{{cite web |title=Too much of the same |author=Jayati Gosh |publisher=D+C Development and Cooperation/ dandc.eu |date=January 2013 |url=http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/globally-harmonised-banking-regulation-does-not-serve-developing-countries-needs}}]
== By country ==
=== Argentina ===
[[Argentina]] underwent heavy economic deregulation, [[privatization]], and had a [[fixed exchange rate]] during the [[Presidency of Carlos Menem|Menem administration]] (1989–1999). In December 2001, [[Paul Krugman]] compared [[Enron]] with Argentina, claiming that both were experiencing economic collapse due to excessive deregulation.[{{cite journal | last = Krugman | first = Paul | author-link = Paul Krugman
| title = Laissez Not Fair | journal = The New York Times
| date = December 11, 2001
| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/opinion/laissez-not-fair.html
| access-date = June 10, 2011}}] Two months later, Herbert Inhaber claimed that Krugman [[Correlation does not imply causation|confused correlation with causation]], and neither collapse was due to excessive deregulation.[{{cite journal | last = Inhaber | first = Herbert
| title = Deregulation and Its Discontents | journal = Ideas in Action
| date = February 12, 2002
| url = http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2002/02/deregulation-and-its-discontents.html
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111105234828/http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2002/02/deregulation-and-its-discontents.html
| archive-date = November 5, 2011
| access-date = June 10, 2012}}]
Deregulation again became a focus point of [[Javier Milei]]'s presidency since 2023 by reducing government intervention and simplifying bureaucracy from repealing rent control to liberalizing the communication sector. Deregulation and State Transformation Minister [[Federico Sturzenegger]] has stated in 2025 that there will be more red tape cuts in 2025 which include lowering tax to imported cars and cut electric car regulations.[[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-deregulation-tsar-mileis-chainsaw-cuts-go-deeper-2025-2025-01-29/ Argentina deregulation tsar: Milei's 'chainsaw' cuts to go deeper in 2025]] The deregulation policies so far has stabilized the economy for the first time with balanced budget and controlled inflation.[[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-inflation-cools-may-lowest-over-five-years-2025-06-12/ Argentina inflation tumbles to five-year-low 1.5% in boost for Milei]]
=== Australia ===
Having announced a wide range of deregulatory policies, [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] Prime Minister [[Bob Hawke]] announced the policy of "Minimum Effective Regulation" in 1986. This introduced now-familiar requirements for "regulatory impact statements", but compliance by governmental agencies took many years. The [[labor market]] under the Hawke/Keating governments operated under the [[Prices and Incomes Accord]]. In the mid-90s [[John Howard]]'s [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal Party]] began deregulation of the labor market with the [[Workplace Relations Act 1996]], going much further in 2005 through its [[WorkChoices]] policy. However, this was reversed under the following [[Rudd Government (2007–10)|Rudd Labor government]].
=== Brazil ===
After [[Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff|Dilma Rousseff's impeachment]], [[Michel Temer]] introduced a [[Brazil labor reform (2017)|labor reform]], besides allowing up to 100% of foreign capital on Brazilian air companies[{{cite web | website= G1
|first1=João Cláudio |last1=Netto |first2=Luiz Felipe |last2=Barbiéri
| title = Temer assina MP que libera até 100% de capital estrangeiro em companhias aéreas brasileiras
| date = December 13, 2018
| url = https://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2018/12/13/temer-assina-mp-que-libera-ate-100-de-capital-estrangeiro-em-companhias-aereas-brasileiras.ghtml
| access-date = January 8, 2023}}] and giving more protection to state-owned enterprises from political pressure.[{{cite web | author-link = Insper
| title = Lei das Estatais e sua aplicação prática
| date = August 16, 2018
| url = https://www.insper.edu.br/agenda-de-eventos/lei-estatais-na-pratica/
|website=Insper
| access-date = January 8, 2023}}]
Bolsonaro administration also promoted deregulations (even the expression "Bolsonomics" was created),[{{cite web | website= Propmark
| title = Bolsonomics: versão cabocla do Reagonomics?
| date = November 6, 2018
| url = https://propmark.com.br/bolsonomics-versao-cabocla-do-reagonomics/
| access-date = January 7, 2023
|url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230107165708/https://propmark.com.br/bolsonomics-versao-cabocla-do-reagonomics/ |archive-date= January 7, 2023 }}] such as Economic Freedom Law,[{{cite journal | last = Deffenti | first = Fabiano
| title = Brazil's Economic Freedom Law | journal = LawsofBrazil
| date = November 1, 2019
| url = https://lawsofbrazil.com/2019/11/01/brazils-economic-freedom-law/
| access-date = January 7, 2023}}] Natural Gas Law,[{{cite journal | author-link = Portal da Indústria
| title = Nova Lei do Gás Natural: entenda quais os seus benefícios | journal = Portal da Indústria
| url = https://www.portaldaindustria.com.br/industria-de-a-z/nova-lei-do-gas/
| access-date = January 7, 2023}}] Basic Sanitation Legal Framework,[{{cite web | website = gov.br
| title = New legislation facilitates private investments in basic sanitation in Brazil
| date = June 13, 2022
| url = https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/2022/new-legislation-facilitates-private-investments-in-basic-sanitation-in-brazil
| access-date = January 7, 2023}}] besides allowing the direct sale of ethanol by fuel stations[{{cite web | website = gov.br
| title = Sancionada lei que permite compra e venda direta de álcool
| date = January 5, 2022
| url = https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2022/janeiro/sancionada-lei-que-permite-compra-e-venda-direta-de-alcool
| access-date = January 7, 2023}}] and opening rail transport industry to private investment.[{{cite journal | last = Yano | first = Célio
| title = Em 6 meses, marco legal das ferrovias atrai R$ 240 bilhões em investimentos privados | journal = Gazeta do Povo
| date = February 7, 2022
| url = https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/economia/investimentos-ferrovias-novo-marco-legal-atraiu-240-bilhoes-reais/
| access-date = January 7, 2023}}] and deregulating the use of foreign currency.[{{cite journal | last = Caselato | first = Matheus
| title = Novo limite para dinheiro em viagens e transferências para e do exterior; entenda o novo marco cambial | journal = Money Times
| date = January 5, 2023
| url = https://www.moneytimes.com.br/novo-limite-para-dinheiro-em-viagens-e-transferencias-para-e-do-exterior-entenda-o-novo-marco-cambial/
| access-date = January 8, 2023}}]
=== Canada ===
{{See also|Electricity policy of Ontario}}
{{Multiple issues|section=yes|
{{Update section|date=August 2021}}
{{More citations needed|section|date=August 2021}}}}
[[Natural gas]] is deregulated in most of the country, except for some Atlantic provinces and some pockets like Vancouver Island and Medicine Hat. Most of this deregulation happened in the mid-1980s.[{{citation
|title=Ontario Electricity Restructuring
|chapter=A Funny Thing happened On the Way to Utopia
|publisher=Public Interest Advocacy Centre
|date=11 November 2002
|chapter-url=http://www.piac.ca/energy/ontario_electricity_restructuring/
|access-date=2009-04-26
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607083903/http://www.piac.ca/energy/ontario_electricity_restructuring/
|archive-date=7 June 2008
}}] [[Comparison shopping website]]s operate in some of these jurisdictions, particularly Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The other provinces are small markets and have not attracted suppliers. Customers have the choice of purchasing from a local distribution company (LDC) or a deregulated supplier. In most provinces the LDC is not allowed to offer a term contract, just a variable price based on the spot market. LDC prices are changed either monthly or quarterly.
[[Ontario]] began deregulation of electricity supply in 2002, but pulled back temporarily due to voter and consumer backlash at the resulting price volatility.[{{Cite journal |last=Gupta |first=Asha |date=1985 |title=Fabianism and Indian Socialism a Comparative Study |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855147 |journal=The Indian Journal of Political Science |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=18–31 |issn=0019-5510}}][{{Cite news |date=2007-09-24 |title=Give up socialism: Greenspan |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/give-up-socialism-greenspan/articleshow/2396018.cms |access-date=2026-07-02 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257}}] As the country faced an [[1991 Indian economic crisis|economic crisis in 1991]], several sectors were deregulated and [[Industrial licensing in India|industrial licensing]] was removed for non-strategic industries, and India became open to foreign investments.[{{Cite web |last=Irwin |first=Douglas A. |date=2025-01-22 |title=Dismantling the license raj: The long road to India’s 1991 trade reforms {{!}} PIIE |url=https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/2025/dismantling-license-raj-long-road-indias-1991-trade-reforms |access-date=2026-07-02 |website=www.piie.com |language=en}}] However, the economic liberalization in India happened only in the capital markets; land and labour market remain significantly constrained with licensing and reporting requirements.[{{Cite book |last=Bhagwati |first=Jaimini |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt20d8754 |title=India Transformed: Twenty-Five Years of Economic Reforms |date=2018 |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |year=2018 |isbn=978-0-8157-3661-5 |location=Washington DC |pages=444-445 |language=en-US |chapter=22. Liberalizing Indian Capital Markets: Highly Successful Reforms and an Unfinished Agenda |doi=10.7864/j.ctt20d8754.26}}]
=== European Union ===
In 2003, there were amendments to EU directive on [[software patent]]s.[{{citation|title=Amendment 23 to the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions|date=September 2003|publisher=[[European Parliament]]|url=http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210231145/http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf|archive-date=February 10, 2006}}]
Since 2006, the [[European Common Aviation Area]] has given carriers from one EU country the [[freedom of the air]] in most others.[{{cite web|title=Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) | url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2006052 |date=December 1, 2017 |publisher= [[European Council]] |accessdate=August 3, 2021}}]
==== Ireland ====
The taxi industry was deregulated in [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] in 2000,[{{cite news|newspaper=[[Irish Independent]]|title= Deregulation 'ruined taxi drivers overnight'|first=Tim|last=Healy|date=October 30, 2013|accessdate=August 3, 2021 |url=https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deregulation-ruined-taxi-drivers-overnight-29709864.html}}] Their claim was dismissed two years later.[{{cite web|website=[[TheJournal.ie]]|title=The government just avoided a €360 million payout over taxis|date=October 16, 2016|accessdate=August 3, 2021|last=Hosford|first=Paul|url=https://www.thejournal.ie/taxis-high-court-challenge-2392615-Oct2015/}}]
=== New Zealand ===
{{See also|Economy of New Zealand}}
[[File:Postal deregulation New Zealand.jpg|thumb|right|Since the deregulation of the postal sector, different postal operators can install mail collection boxes in New Zealand's streets.]]
New Zealand Governments adopted policies of extensive deregulation from 1984 to 1995. Originally initiated by the [[Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand]],[{{cite encyclopedia
|title=Spending in the economy – Economic reform from 1984
|encyclopedia= Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand
|date= 5 March 2010
|access-date=4 October 2012
|url= http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/spending-in-the-economy/3
|first=Paul
|last=Dalziel}}] the policies of deregulation were later continued by the [[Fourth National Government of New Zealand]]. The policies had the goal of liberalizing the economy and were notable for their very comprehensive coverage and innovations. Specific policies included: floating the exchange rate; establishing an independent reserve bank; performance contracts for senior civil servants; [[public sector]] finance reform based on accrual accounting; tax neutrality; subsidy-free agriculture; and industry-neutral competition regulation. Economic growth was resumed in 1991. New Zealand was changed from a somewhat closed and centrally controlled economy to one of the most open economies in the OECD.[{{cite journal |last1=Evans |first1=Lewis |last2=Grimes |first2=Arthur |last3=Wilkinson |first3=Bryce |last4=Teece |first4=David |title=Economic Reform in New Zealand 1984-95: The Pursuit of Efficiency |journal=Journal of Economic Literature |date=1996 |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=1856–1902 |id={{ProQuest|213226506}} |jstor=2729596 }}] As a result, New Zealand, went from having a reputation as an almost socialist country to being considered one of the most business-friendly countries of the world, next to Singapore. However, critics charge that the deregulation has brought little benefit to some sections of society, and has caused much of New Zealand's economy (including almost all of the banks) to become foreign-owned.{{Citation needed|date=October 2012}}
=== Russia ===
Russia went through wide-ranging deregulation (and concomitant privatization) efforts in the late 1990s under [[Boris Yeltsin]], now partially reversed under [[Vladimir Putin]]. The main thrust of deregulation has been the electricity sector (see [[RAO UES]]), with railroads and communal utilities tied in second place.{{Citation needed|date=September 2007}} Deregulation of the natural gas sector ([[Gazprom]]) is one of the more frequent demands placed upon Russia by the United States and European Union.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
=== United Kingdom ===
The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] government led by [[Margaret Thatcher]] started a programme of deregulation after the party's victory at the [[1979 United Kingdom general election|1979 general election]]. For example, the [[Building Act 1984]] reduced building regulations from 306 pages to 24. Nonetheless, an average of 1,724 new laws were introduced per year during her tenure between 1979 and 1990.[{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13569604|title=Record number of new laws made in 2010|website=BBC News|date=2011}}] Thatcher's successor [[John Major]] succeeded in gaining an opt-out for Britain from the social aspects of the [[Maastricht Treaty]] in 1992.
From 1997 to 2010, the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] governments of [[Tony Blair]] and [[Gordon Brown]] developed a programme called "[[Better Regulation Commission|better regulation]]". This required government departments to review, simplify or abolish existing regulations, and a "one in, one out" approach to new regulations. In 1997, Chancellor Brown announced the "freeing" of the [[Bank of England]] to set monetary policy, so the Bank was no longer under direct government control. In 2005, [[prime minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] Blair said that:
{{quote|"There is usually a seductive logic to any new regulation. There is almost always a case that can be made for each specific instrument. The problem is cumulative. All these good intentions can add up to a large expense, with suffocating effects. Sometimes, we need to pause for a moment and think whether we will do more damage with a hasty response than was done by the problem itself."[{{cite web |title=FSA attacks Blair as speech causes tensions to boil over |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fsa-attacks-blair-as-speech-causes-tensions-to-boil-over-493196.html |access-date=March 16, 2026 |publisher=The Independent}}]|}}
In 2006, new primary legislation (the [[Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006]]) was introduced to establish statutory principles and a code of practice and it permits ministers to make [[Regulatory Reform Order]]s (RROs) to deal with older laws which they deem to be out of date, obscure or irrelevant. This act has often been criticized and was described in Parliament by [[Patrick Jenkin|Lord (Patrick) Jenkin]] as the "Abolition of Parliament Act".[{{cite hansard|url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2006-07-03/debates/0607031000003/LegislativeAndRegulatoryReformBill|date=July 3, 2006|accessdate=August 1, 2021|title=Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill|volume=684|speaker=[[Patrick Jenkin]]|house=HL}}]
Nonetheless, in 2006, [[Terence Etherton|Sir Terence Etherton]], Chairman of the [[Law Commission (England and Wales)|Law Commission]] stated that each year over 10,000 pages of new legislation are added either by [[Acts of Parliament]] or orders made under them.[{{cite book|title=Red Tape|last=Ellison|first=Robin|date=2018|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=9}}] In 2009 a review for the Conservative Party found the number closer to 18,000 pages, excluding EU directives.[{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/19023121/Sir-David-Arculus-Et-Al-2009a-Arculus-Review-A-Report-for-the-Conservative-Party|title=The Arculus Review: Enabling Enterprise, Encouraging Responsibility|last=Arculus|first=David|date=2009|page=7}}] In 2010, there were a record 3,504 new laws introduced, about 13.8 per day.[{{cite web|title=Measuring the changing length of UK tax legislation|url=https://www.icaew.com/library/research-guides/length-of-uk-tax-legislation|website=ICEAW.com|publisher=Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales|date=31 July 2025}}] Likewise, whereas in the 1970s there were about 100 pages of [[Pensions in the United Kingdom|pension]] rules in total,[{{cite book|title=Red Tape|last=Ellison|first=Robin|date=2018|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=x}}] by 2018 there were closer to 160,000.[{{cite web|url=https://www.pensions-institute.org/PensionsAndChocolate2017.pdf|title=Pensions and Chocolate|author=Pinsent Masons|date=2017}}]
=== United States ===
==== History of regulation ====
One problem that encouraged deregulation was the way in which regulated industries often come to control the government [[regulation|regulatory agencies]] in a process known as [[regulatory capture]]. Industries then use regulation to serve their own interests, at the expense of the consumer. A similar pattern has been seen with the deregulation process itself, often effectively controlled by regulated industries through lobbying. Such political forces, however, exist in many other forms for other [[lobby group]]s.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
Examples of deregulated industries in the United States are banking, telecommunications, airlines, and natural resources.[{{cite book |last1=Cutter |first1=Susan L. |last2=Renwick |first2=William H. |title=Exploitation Conservation Preservation: A Geographic Perspective on Natural Resource Use |date=2004 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-0-471-15225-5 |oclc=52554419 }}{{page needed|date=December 2022}}]
During the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s–1920), [[POTUS|Presidents]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]], [[William Howard Taft]], and [[Woodrow Wilson]] instituted regulation on parts of the American economy, most notably big business and industry. Some prominent reforms were [[trust-busting]] (the destruction and banning of monopolies), the creation of laws protecting the American consumer, the creation of a federal income tax (by the [[Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixteenth Amendment]]; the income tax used a [[progressive tax|progressive tax structure]] with especially high taxes on the wealthy), the establishment of the [[Federal Reserve]], the institution of shorter [[working hours]], higher [[wage]]s, better living conditions, better rights and privileges to trade unions, protection of the rights of [[Strike action|strikers]], banning of unfair labor practices, and the delivery of more [[social welfare|social services]] to the working classes and [[social safety net]]s to many unemployed workers, thus helping to create a [[welfare state]].{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
During the presidencies of [[Warren Harding]] (1921–23) and [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923–29), the federal government generally pursued [[laissez-faire]] economic policies. After the onset of the [[Great Depression]], President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] implemented many economic regulations, including the [[National Industrial Recovery Act]] (which was struck down by the Supreme Court), regulation of trucking, airlines and communications, the [[Securities Exchange Act of 1934]], and the [[Glass–Steagall Act]] of 1933. These regulations stayed largely in place until [[Richard Nixon]]'s Administration.[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16514254.html{{Dead link|date=October 2009}}] In supporting his competition-limiting regulatory initiatives President Roosevelt blamed the excesses of big business for causing an [[economic bubble]]. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
==== 1970–2000 ====
Deregulation gained momentum in the 1970s, influenced by research by the [[Chicago school of economics]] and the theories of [[George Stigler]], [[Alfred E. Kahn]],[{{cite news
|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/business/29kahn.html
|title=Alfred E. Kahn Dies at 93; Prime Mover of Airline Deregulation
|first=Robert D.
|last=Hershy Jr.
|date=December 28, 2010
|newspaper=New York Times}}] and others.[{{cite journal |last1=Peltzman |first1=Sam |last2=Levine |first2=Michael E. |last3=Noll |first3=Roger G. |title=The Economic Theory of Regulation after a Decade of Deregulation |journal=Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics |date=1989 |volume=1989 |pages=1–59 |id={{ProQuest|217121225}} |doi=10.2307/2534719 |jstor=2534719 |url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1989/01/1989_bpeamicro_peltzman.pdf }}] The new ideas were widely embraced by both liberals and conservatives. Two leading think tanks in Washington, the [[Brookings Institution]] and the [[American Enterprise Institute]], were active in holding seminars and publishing studies advocating deregulatory initiatives throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Cornell economist Alfred E. Kahn played a central role in both theorizing and participating in the [[Carter Administration]]'s efforts to deregulate transportation.[{{cite journal |last1=Kahn |first1=Alfred |title=Deregulation: Looking Backward and Looking Forward |journal=Yale Journal on Regulation |date=1990 |hdl=20.500.13051/8412 |hdl-access=free }}]
Despite these efforts, according to a report by the free-market [[Mercatus Center]] at [[George Mason University]], drawing on the US government's [[Code of Federal Regulations]]:
{{quote|From 1970 to 1981, restrictions were added at an average rate of about 24,000 per year. From 1981 to 1985, that pace slowed to an average of 620 restrictions per year, before accelerating back to 18,000 restrictions per year from 1985 to 1995. A decrease of 27,000 restrictions occurred from 1995 to 1996—3.2 percent of the 1995 total—and in the 20 years since then, regulation has grown steadily by about 13,000 restrictions per year. These periods do not match up neatly with any president or party; rather, regulatory accumulation seems to be a bipartisan trend—or perhaps a bureaucratic trend independent of elected officials’ ideologies.[{{cite web|url=https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/regulatory-accumulation-1970|title=Regulatory Accumulation since 1970 |publisher=Mercatus Center|date=31 August 2017}}]}}
==== Transportation ====
===== Nixon administration =====
The first comprehensive proposal to deregulate a major industry, transportation, originated in the [[Richard Nixon]] Administration and was forwarded to Congress in late 1971.{{sfn|Rose|Seely|Barrett|2006|p=154}} This proposal was initiated and developed by an interagency group that included the Council of Economic Advisors (represented by [[Hendrik S. Houthakker|Hendrik Houthakker]] and Thomas Gale Moore[{{cite web
| title = Thomas Gale Moore
| publisher = The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
| url = http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Bio.html
| access-date = 2012-06-11}}{{self-published inline|date=December 2022}}]), White House Office of Consumer Affairs (represented by Jack Pearce), Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Labor, and other agencies.{{sfn|Rose|Seely|Barrett|2006|pp=152–60}}
The proposal addressed both rail and truck transportation, but not air carriage. (92d Congress, Senate Bill 2842) The developers of this legislation in this Administration sought to cultivate support from commercial buyers of transportation services, [[consumer organization]]s, economists, and environmental organization leaders.{{sfn|Rose|Seely|Barrett|2006|pp=154–56}} This 'civil society' coalition became a template for coalitions influential in efforts to deregulate trucking and air transport later in the decade.
===== Ford administration =====
After Nixon left office, the [[Gerald Ford]] presidency, with allied interests, secured passage of the first significant change in regulatory policy in a pro-competitive direction, in the [[Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976]].{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
===== Carter administration =====
President [[Jimmy Carter]] – aided by economic adviser Alfred E. Kahn[{{cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=John Howard |title=Jimmy Carter, Alfred Kahn, and airline deregulation: anatomy of a policy success |journal=Independent Review |date=22 June 2014 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=85–100 |id={{Gale|A377778767}} {{ProQuest|1541534529}} |jstor=24563260 |url=https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/econ-facpubs/80/ }}][Lang, Susan S. [https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/12/alfred-kahn-father-airline-deregulation-dies-93 "Economist Alfred Kahn, 'father of airline deregulation' and former presidential adviser, dies at 93,"]
December 27, 2010, ''[[Cornell Chronicle]],'' retrieved April 9, 2020]
Carter also worked with Congress to produce the [[Staggers Rail Act]] (signed October 14, 1980), and the [[Motor Carrier Act of 1980]] (signed July 1, 1980).
===== 1970s deregulation effects =====
These were the major deregulation acts in transportation that set the general conceptual and legislative framework, which replaced the regulatory systems put in place between the 1880s and the 1930s. The dominant common theme of these Acts was to lessen [[barriers to entry]] in transport markets and promote more independent, competitive pricing among transport service providers, substituting the freed-up competitive market forces for detailed regulatory control of entry, exit, and price-making in transport markets. Thus deregulation arose, though regulations to promote competition were put in place.{{citation needed|date=April 2020}}
===== Reagan administration =====
U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]] campaigned on the promise of rolling back environmental regulations. His devotion to the economic beliefs of [[Milton Friedman]] led him to promote the deregulation of finance, agriculture, and transportation.{{sfn|Kleinknecht|2010|p=}} A series of substantial enactments were needed to work out the process of encouraging competition in transportation. Interstate buses were addressed in 1982, in the [[Bus Regulatory Reform Act]] of 1982. Freight forwarders (freight aggregators) got more freedoms in the [[Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act of 1986]]. As many states continued to regulate the operations of motor carriers within their own state, the intrastate aspect of the trucking and bus industries was addressed in the [[Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994]], which provided that "a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of two or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier." {{usc|49|14501}}(c)(1) (Supp. V 1999).
Ocean transportation was the last to be addressed. This was done in two acts, the [[Shipping Act of 1984]] and the [[Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998]]. These acts were less thoroughgoing than the legislation dealing with U.S. domestic transportation, in that they left in place the "conference" system in international ocean liner shipping, which historically embodied cartel mechanisms. However, these acts permitted independent rate-making by conference participants, and the 1998 Act permitted secret contract rates, which tend to undercut collective carrier pricing. According to the [[United States Federal Maritime Commission]], in an assessment in 2001, this appears to have opened up substantial competitive activity in ocean shipping, with beneficial economic results.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
==== Energy ====
The [[Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act]] was a regulating law, consisting of a mix of regulations and deregulation, which passed in response to [[OPEC]] price hikes and domestic price controls which affected the [[1973 oil crisis]] in the United States. After adoption of this federal legislation, numerous state laws known as [[Natural Gas Choice]] programs have sprung up in several states, as well as the District of Columbia. Natural Gas Choice programs allow residential and small volume natural gas users to compare purchases from natural gas suppliers with traditional utility companies. There are currently hundreds of federally unregulated natural gas suppliers operating in the US. Regulation characteristics of Natural Gas Choice programs vary between the laws of the currently adopted 21 states (as of 2008).
{{anchor|U.S. electricity}} Deregulation of the electricity sector in the U.S. began in 1992. The [[Energy Policy Act of 1992]] eliminated obstacles for wholesale electricity competition, but deregulation has yet to be introduced in all states.[{{cite web | url = https://www.en-powered.com/blog/the-bumpy-road-to-energy-deregulation | title = The Bumpy Road to Energy Deregulation | publisher = EnPowered | date = 2016-03-28 | access-date = 2017-05-01 | archive-date = 2017-04-07 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170407145323/https://www.en-powered.com/blog/the-bumpy-road-to-energy-deregulation | url-status = dead }}] As of April 2014, 16 U.S. states ([[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Illinois]], [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Michigan]], [[Montana]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York (state)|New York]], [[Ohio]], [[Oregon]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Texas]]) and the [[District of Columbia]] have introduced deregulated [[electricity market]]s to consumers in some capacity. Additionally, seven states ([[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[New Mexico]], [[Virginia]], and [[Wyoming]]) began the process of electricity deregulation in some capacity but have since suspended deregulation efforts.[
{{cite web
| url = http://www.electricitylocal.com/resources/deregulation/
| title = Electricity Deregulation Map of the United States
| publisher = Electricity Local
| access-date = 2014-04-23}}]
==== Communications ====
{{See also|Telecommunications Act of 1996|Concentration of media ownership}}
Deregulation was put into effect in the communications industry by the government at the start of the [[Multi-Channel Transition]] era.{{sfn|Lotz|2007|p=47}} This deregulation put into place a division of labor between the studios and the networks.{{sfn|Lotz|2007|p=82}} Communications in the United States (and internationally) are areas in which both technology and regulatory policy have been in flux. The rapid development of computer and communications technology – particularly the Internet – have increased the size and variety of communications offerings. Wireless, traditional landline telephone, and cable companies increasingly invade each other's traditional markets and compete across a broad spectrum of activities. The [[Federal Communications Commission]] and Congress appear to be attempting to facilitate this evolution. In mainstream economic thinking, development of this competition would militate against detailed regulatory control of prices and service offerings, and hence favor deregulation of prices and entry into markets.[{{citation
|last=Crandall
|first=Robert W.
|title=Competition and Chaos – U.S. Telecommunications Since the 1996 Telecom Act
|publisher=[[Brookings Institution]]
|isbn=978-0-8157-1617-4
|date=1 December 2004
}}{{page needed|date=December 2022}}] On the other hand, there exists substantial concern about concentration of media ownership resulting from relaxation of historic controls on media ownership designed to safeguard diversity of viewpoint and open discussion in the society, and about what some perceive as high prices in cable company offerings at this point.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}
==== Finance ====
The [[financial sector]] in the U.S. has been considerably deregulated in recent decades, which has allowed for greater [[financial risk]]taking. The financial sector used its considerable political sway in [[U.S. Congress|Congress]] and in the political establishment and influenced the ideology of political institutions to press for more and more deregulation.{{sfn|Johnson|Kwak|2010|pp=20, 133, 150}} Among the most important of the regulatory changes was the [[Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act]] of 1980, which repealed the parts of the [[Glass–Steagall Act]] regarding interest rate regulation via retail banking. The [[Financial Services Modernization Act]] of 1999 repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
Such deregulation of the financial sector in the United States fostered greater risk-taking by finance sector firms through the creation of [[financial innovation|innovative financial]] [[financial instrument|instruments]] and practices, including [[securitization]] of loan obligations of various sorts and [[credit default swap]]s.{{sfn|Johnson|Kwak|2010|pp=88-90}} This caused a series of financial crises, including the [[savings and loan crisis]], the [[Long-Term Capital Management]] (LTCM) crisis, each of which necessitated major bailouts, and the derivatives scandals of 1994.[{{cite news|newspaper=[[Financial Times]]|place=London|date=March 19, 2013|url=https://www.ft.com/content/32cca748-8fe8-11e2-9239-00144feabdc0 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/32cca748-8fe8-11e2-9239-00144feabdc0 |archive-date=2022-12-10 |url-access=subscription|title=Markets: The Ghosts of '94 Veteran bond traders fear the omens point to a repeat of the catastrophic collapse of the mid-nineties}}][{{cite web|publisher=PBS |series=[[Frontline (U.S. TV program)]]|date=October 20, 2009|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/warnings.html|title=The Warning: Two Early Derivative Blowups}}] These warning signs were ignored as financial deregulating continued, even in view of the inadequacy of [[industry self-regulation]] as shown by the financial collapses and bailout. The 1998 bailout of LTCM sent the signal to large "[[too-big-to-fail]]" financial firms that they would not have to suffer the [[moral hazard|consequences of the great risks]] they take. Thus, the greater risk-taking allowed by deregulation and encouraged by the bailout paved the way for the [[2008 financial crisis]].{{sfn|Johnson|Kwak|2010|pp=147-148}}