1. See Table 1, photocopied from U.S. Small Business Administration, The Impact on Small Business Concerns of Government Regulations that Force Technological Change, 1975. The list is far from complete with respect to federal "social regulation" We might add the monumentally important Civil Rights Act of 1964, proscribing discrimination by race and sex in employment, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (forbidding employment discrimination against the handicapped). Major environmental enactments were the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (and the major amendments of 1977), the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (1972), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Strip Mine Legislation of 1977. More recent consumer protection and safety acts include the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1972), the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act (1973), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 1974, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (1974), The Magnuson-Moss Warranty-FTC Improvement Act (1974). For other measures of the growth of federal regulation, see William Lilley III and James C. Miller, III, "The New' social Regulation'" The Public Interest, No. 47 (April 1977)
2. Nina W. Cornell, Roger G. Noll, and Barry Weingast, ". Safety Regulation" in Setting National Priorities: the Next Ten Years. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1976, pp. 457-504.
3. These interviews were undertaken as part of a study of the regulatory process directed by Professor Eugene Bardach, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, and by Professor Robert A. Kagan, Department of Political Science at the same university. The study is funded by the Twentieth Century Fund, New York City. The Center for the Study of Law and Society in Berkeley has provided office space and other assistance. We (or our research assistants) conducted open-ended interviews of inspectors and higher enforcement officials of the federal Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. We also interviewed inspectors and directors of enforcement at a number of California state agencies: the Division of Occupational Safety and Health; the Food and Drug Division and Nursing Home Division in the Department of Health; the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in the California Highway Patrol; the Milk and Dairy Section of the Department of Agriculture; and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. We also interviewed municipal building and housing code inspectors and fire marshals in the City of Oakland. In several instances we or our research assistants accompanied inspectors on a daily round. Second, we conducted open-ended interviews of executives and managers in companies regulated by each of the above agencies, concentrating on a limited number of firms in certain industries: steel foundries (4) and aluminum manufacturing companies (2) (with respect to workplace safety and health regulation and air pollution regulation); automobile assembly plants (2) (with respect to worker safety); blood banks and blood products manufacturers (2) (with respect to FDA regulation of “biologies”); petroleum refineries (3) (with respect to air pollution); trucking firms or trucking departments (3) (with respect to truck safety regulation); nursing homes (2) and dairy products manufacturers (2). In addition, we interviewed labor union officers in four companies and insurance company representatives from two insurance firms with respect to safety matters. Third, we conducted a two-day workshop in May, 1978, at the Graduate School of Public Policy at Berkeley in which we recorded round-table discussions among enforcement officials from most of the above-mentioned agencies and a few representatives of regulated firms. The sample of agencies and regulated businesses is not systematic. We cannot contend that their responses are “representative in a scientific sense. Our goal, in this exploratory study, was not to compare a broad range of agencies and companies, but to concentrate on in-depth interviewing so as to discover attitudes and analyses by participants in the regulatory process. that pointed to significant problems, as they experienced them, and which suggested directions for more systematic research.
4. We use the terms “. business firm” and “business corporation” interchangeably, primarily because most of respondents did, although some “theories” seem especially applicable to the large corporation.
5. See W. G. Carson, “White Collar Crime and Enforcement of the Factory Acts”, British Journal of Criminology (Oct. 1970) p. 394. See also Keith Hawkins’ forthcoming study of water pollution inspectors in England, Pollution, Law and Social Control (London: MacMillan Press: In Press).