IEA Readings – serie

Eleven years after the first utility privatisation, the agenda has moved from whether privatisation will do better than its state predecessor to the question of how to do better with privatisation. The future of regulation seems very uncertain. The stakeholders consumers, politicians, the companies themselves and their shareholders are increasingly critical. Regulatory processes have borne the brunt of criticism. Conflicting remedies are suggested for the problems which have arisen. Should there be more competition? Should regulators' powers be increased and perhaps widened? Should some of their Offices be amalgamated? Should the respective powers of the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission be reconsidered? Should government become more involved in regulation? Each year the IEA, in association with the London Business School, publishes a volume of Readings which provides an up-to-date assessment of the state of utility regulation. In this, the latest in the series, the regulators themselves discuss the problems they face and leading commentators assess the regulators' contributions.The result is a wealth of detail about utility regulation in Britain where it is now and where it may be going.

Utility regulation in Britain has now entered a phase in which debate is no longer so much concerned with whether it is preferable to rival systems but with how to shape the'regulatory contract' in monopoly areas and, in potentially competitive areas, how to ensure rivalry.

There is now widespread recognition of the difficulties of continuing with state monopolies of 'welfare provision'. Hence evidence is being sought on the possible benefits of private provision of education, medical care, housing, pensions and unemployment insurance. In this volume, edited by Arthur Seldon who has been responsible for much of the IEA's pioneering work in the welfare field, 10 authors use counterfactual analysis to explore the development of private welfare provision before the state takeover in the late 19th century. They assess what might have happened without that takeover, and draw lessons for the future. Seldon concludes that the 'market process' in welfare is likely to replace the 'political process' so that the state will no longer prevent the market from '...discovering the imperfections of the welfare state and the remedies.