Gains from messy regulatory footprints

by Amrita Agarwal and Ajay Shah. 

The traditional view

Regulatory architecture is the design of regulatory agencies as a block diagram with a box for each agency, a clear problem statement for each agency, and a set of definitions about how the agencies interact. In the analysis of regulatory architecture in India, we generally think there should be full clarity on the regulatory perimeter (what activities are regulated) and on the state agency that is vested with the relevant regulatory power (who regulates what). It is believed that regulatory arbitrage is a bad thing. Firms should not be able to choose the regulator that they prefer, and firms should not be able to opt out of regulation by going to the edges of a poorly defined regulatory perimeter. 

Consider the long journey to the Gold ETF (documented in Box 9.4 of Mistry, 2007). The Gold ETF was delayed by 5 years because all of the RBI, SEBI and FMC claimed jurisdiction over it. Reformers have long argued that regulatory architecture changes are required so as to eliminate such regulatory logjams. In the conventional Indian discourse, a clean block diagram has been prized (Roy et. al. 2019). It is felt that there should be a simple diagram and then everyone knows where they stand. The firms then organise themselves to go to the right state agency and civil servants do not waste time fighting turf battles. State power is unambiguously defined, for any aspect of the coercive power of the state, private firms have clarity on who wields that power, private firms have no agency on these questions, there is no regulatory arbitrage. For the field of finance, FSLRC offered such a clean block diagram (FSLRC, 2013). 

In this article, we explore limitations of this approach.

Dispersion of power

In the field of political science, the essential idea is that of dispersion of power, of checks and balances. The state performs better when power is contestable, when we `pit interest against interest’ (Madison, 1788). Pure power becomes tyranny; checks and balances are the path to state capability. 

This is the motivation for separation of powers (split the state vertically between the legislative, executive and judicial branches) and federalism (split the state between union, state government and city government). These give dispersion of power. 

The checks and balances, the conflicts between these multiple elements of the state, is messy. But we get better outcomes out of this untidy mess than we would with concentration of power (and the associated clarity of who is in charge). 

There is an interesting analogy in urban planning. Jane Jacobs (1961) and James C. Scott (1998) have emphasised that a highly legible, master-planned city is rarely a thriving one. A good city is teeming with a million kinds of thoughts and actions. It is a great city, but it’s not easily understood. By pursuing simplicity of control and the ease of achieving state legibility (Scott, 1998) and state control, we don’t get to a good society. Ultimately, we are after a great society, not a powerful state. 

Three kinds of reasons favour epistemic pluralism in state building:

1. The world is complicated, and nobody knows what the correct state intervention is (Hayek, 1945). In this case, clearly handing over all the power to one state agency is less effective. It is better to have multiple different approaches by multiple agencies, which would yield more experimentation and diversity in the society. When one agency is doing something wrong, private persons benefit from having agency on going to another. Multiple agencies doing diverse things creates more knowledge as compared with one agency doing one thing.
2. Public choice theory shows us a causal pathway from greater power to reduced performance. When state personnel command more absolute power, there is a greater chance of going down pathways that suit the interests of the state and not the interests of the people.
3. Sometimes, there may not be a one size fits all regulatory strategy. There may be gains from having different government organisations approach things in diverse ways.

We should see the problem of agencies and their footprint in a more heterodox way. Instead of full clarity that all the power of X nature is to be wielded by Y agency only, and that all private persons must stand in line without flexibility or choice, would it help to have a greater blurring of the lines where multiple agencies overlap, including a role for fully unregulated arrangements? This could create better checks and balances. 

If this approach is taken, there would be more experiments of alternative pathways to performing state functions and multiple government organisations would learn from these experiments. The people would be less controlled, they would have more choice on how to behave (Tiebout, 1956). This would generate better progress when compared with a monolithic approach.

Example: Hedge funds

The government believes it adds value by doing consumer protection for mutual funds. One could think of a single government regulatory system doing consumer protection that applies to all funds. But we don’t have to think like that. By the time a customer is bringing Rs.10M to a fund, there is no need for consumer protection. 

This gives the `hedge fund’ idea: The regulations must carve out a distinct industry, hedge funds, where the customer is obliged to bring in over Rs.10M. In India, we see this with the SEBI 2012 AIF regulations. This industry requires contract enforcement and prudential regulation (promises should be upheld, lying is not okay), and extremely large hedge funds can raise concerns about systemic risk regulation. But there is no case for consumer protection for hedge funds, which reduces the burden of regulation. 

Once this is done, there will be competition in the eyes of some customers between the less regulated industry (hedge funds) vs. the more regulated industry (mutual funds). If regulation for consumer protection creates value, then all customers will be attracted to mutual funds. But if there are flaws in the regulation of mutual funds, the hedge fund industry will grow. The presence of less-regulated hedge funds is a constant counter-point to the consumer protection that’s sought to be done in mutual funds.

Example: Company law in the US

Companies in the US can register in any state while operating in others. This creates competition between the company laws across states. This gives companies the ability to shop for their preferred legal regime. The state of Delaware has done well in modifying its laws and agencies so as to be more attractive to companies for incorporation, mergers & acquisitions, and exit. Some other states like Wyoming have followed this example and innovated on other aspects to provide a distinctive regime to attract companies. 

This approach has created a rich tapestry of natural experiments which reveal the efficient frontier of how company law should work (Romano, 1993; Fisch, 2017). If there had been a single mechanism of company law for the full country, there would be less empirical learning.

Example: The US banking system

Banks in the USA have a choice between a National Charter, a State Charter and a State Non-Member status. They can switch between these when they so desire. A multi-state Bank may switch to a National Charter under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). An innovative local-oriented bank may choose a State charter under the state’s banking department and the Federal Reserve. The threat of banks switching also reshapes the incentives of each regulatory agency, where excesses of power will lead to flight of the regulated to a certain extent. This gives better flexibility and checks-and-balances when compared with a single national bank regulation system. 

These benefits come with difficulties. Multiple alternative regulatory authorities (SEC vs. CFTC, OCC vs. Fed vs. FDIC) were part of a race to the bottom that led up to the crisis of 2008. In that period, Washington Mutual and AIG chose the under-resourced Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) as its regulator. In response to the 2008 crisis, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was dismantled as part of the Dodd Frank Act (Granza et al, 2024).

Example: Recent thinking in Argentina

Javier Milei has emphasised that regulators are often captured by the existing players. Regulators obtain coercive power under the excuse of addressing market failure, but often use these powers in ways that hinder competition, creating a cosy profitable and less innovative equilibrium. One difficult pathway to address this is deeper regulatory reforms (akin to the FSLRC concepts of improving checks and balances and curbing the arbitrary power of regulators). Another pathway, that is being attempted in Argentina, is to subject the incumbent regulator and industry to the competitive pressure of alternative regulatory regimes. 

Milei’s Minister of Deregulation, Federico Sturzenegger, has argued that economic reform needs to identify many points where a bureaucrat or a union has the power to say “No” and introduce an alternative pathway where the market can say “Yes” without them. 

Towards these objectives, in 2023, the Amendment to the Civil and Commercial Code (Decree 70/2023) enforced a strict ‘freedom of contract’ settlement via their currency of choice – US dollars, cryptocurrency or even commodities. This gives choice back to the people and removes the monopoly of the local central bank for controlling local transactions or introducing cross border capital controls.

Similarly, the Fondo de Cese Laboral (Employment Severance Fund, Decree 847/2024) gives employers the choice to replace the traditional lump-sum expensive and uncertain litigation prone severance regulatory framework with a pre-funded predictable payout. This creates an alternative mechanism that firms in agreement with their labour union can choose to adopt if they feel it is superior in their context. This is playing out on the ground with each firm and labour union making their choice. 

It is too early to tell whether Milei’s reforms will succeed in restoring high economic growth to Argentina. But they illustrate the ideas of the present article: When faced with a monolithic incumbent regime, there is value in creating ambiguity and flexibility about the regulatory perimeter and the power of each authority.

Example: Charter cities, Hong Kong and GIFT City

While nobody planned it this way, the fact that the British retained control of Hong Kong in 1949 created the possibility of forum shopping for private persons. If communist China did well in certain respects, individuals and firms could choose to locate in China. But if British style liberal democracy worked well in certain respects, individuals and firms could choose to locate in Hong Kong. 

In the event, we know that Hong Kong worked out much better than China, to the point where it became an embarrassment for the CCP. But in the years where Hong Kong was a genuine alternative (roughly 1949-2015), it gave private persons a choice: to be ruled by one kind of government or another. The presence of this alternative made a major positive impact on China’s trajectory. The removal of this alternative has had an adverse impact on China’s trajectory. 

Paul Romer has extended this idea into a more general possibility of establishing `Charter Cities’ where first world liberal democracies run enclaves in poor countries, and then individuals and firms get a choice about what kind of government they prefer. 

Potentially, GIFT City can evolve towards a more first world governance style, and then it would become a counterpoint to conventional Indian thinking on how financial law and regulation works. From this perspective, the role that has been given to incumbent regulators in the governance of GIFT City represents a limitation to the possibilities of GIFT City emerging as a competitive rival to mainstream Indian state mechanisms on financial economic policy. 

In each of these three settings — Hong Kong vs. PRC, Charter Cities vs. developing country host, GIFT City vs. conventional Indian financial economic policy — we see the gains from multiple choices being available to private persons as opposed to a simple monolithic state, where the people are crushed, where there is no possibility of forum shopping.

Epistemic pluralism as a consideration in agency architecture

Simplicity and clarity of a block diagram, a complete and unambiguous regulatory perimeter, the lack of turf battles: All these are appealing in the yearning of the state for more power. They fit well with a high-modernist desire for social engineering, to rearrange society in a way that increases state legibility and looks logical. But they come at the cost of epistemic pluralism. 

State personnel and agencies perform better when their power is lower, when there are greater checks and balances. The society works better when there is more freedom, when the people are placed under weaker state power, when the people have more choice. It is better to envision a world where the people have more of a say in who will regulate them and how. 

We fully recognise that this can be messy. Forum shopping can become a race to the bottom with private firms choosing the least burdensome regulation, creating incentives for government organisations to deregulate even when wise state action is required to address market failure. The messy arrangement will involve bigger payments to lawyers, and turf battles between government organisations. But we should simultaneously see the limitations of monolithic power. There is merit in careful choices that create some amount of a mess. 

What we need is not a simple insistence on monolithic power. What we need is a sophisticated conversation on conditions under which we get a race to the top (more like Delaware) as opposed to a race to the bottom (more like the US Office for Thrift Supervision). 

It is easy to criticise the US financial system as a sequence of disasters from LTCM to Lehman. But it is also important to see that the US has the highest per capita GDP in the world. There is a connection between the freedoms of the United States — which come with difficulties — and the immense success of the United States. The same financial system that failed with crises from LTCM to Lehman is the financial system that innovated, invented most of modern finance, and funded innovators and risk-takers that made the United States what it is today.

 In India, we come from the other extreme: from the presumption of state power and low freedom. It would be useful to step back from the yearning for complete state power. A world with more checks and balances looks messier, but it is generally more conducive to a good society and economic success. 

Introducing greater ambiguity around the regulatory perimeter is an important third pathway for economic reform, in addition to the traditional twin engines of (a) Deregulation, of removing state interference on problems where there is no market failure and (b) Putting the cladding of checks-and-balances and the rule of law, upon state agencies that do wield coercive power. 

The field of regulation is far from figured out. On a global scale, regulators first came about less than 100 years ago in the United States. Here in India, it is only from the late 2000s that a conceptual understanding of regulators started emerging in the intellectual community. The world is complex, state capability is low, most state coercion in India is riddled with mistakes. A big journey lies ahead, both in India and elsewhere, to find the goldilocks zone, of addressing some market failure but avoiding the excesses of state power ranging from central planning (government control of products and processes) to corruption. One ingredient that we in India need to add to our regulatory philosophy is humility, the desire for epistemic pluralism.

Bibliography

Agarwal, Sumit, David Lucca, Amit Seru, and Francesco Trebbi. 2014. “Inconsistent Regulators: Evidence from Banking.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (2): 889–938. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju003. 

Awrey, Dan. 2025. “Money and Federalism.” Duke Law Journal 75 (2): 171–245. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4256&context=dlj. 

Butler, Henry N., and Jonathan R. Macey. 1988. “The Myth of Competition in the Dual Banking System.” Cornell Law Review 73 (4): 677–718. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol73/iss4/1 

Executive Power of the Argentine Nation. 2023. Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia 70/2023: Bases para la Reconstrucción de la Economía Argentina. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, December 21, 2023. https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/301122/20231221. 

Executive Power of the Argentine Nation. 2024. Decreto 847/2024: Reglamentación del Título IV -Promoción del Empleo Registrado- y del Título V -Modernización Laboral- Ley N° 27.742. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, September 26, 2024. https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/314634/20240926. 

Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission. 2013. Report of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission: Volume I: Analysis and Recommendations. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance, Government of India. March. https://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/fslrc_report_vol1_1.pdf. 

Fisch, Jill E. 2018. “Governance by Contract: The Implications for Corporate Bylaws.” California Law Review 106 (2): 373–410. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1743/. 

Granja, João, and Christian Leuz. 2024. “The Death of a Regulator: Strict Supervision, Bank Lending, and Business Activity.” Journal of Financial Economics 158: 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103871. 

Hayek, Friedrich A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The American Economic Review 35, no. 4 (September): 519–30. 

Jacobs, Jane. 1992. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1961) 

Madison, James. 1788. “Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” In The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed Upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, Vol. 2. New York: J. & A. McLean. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493427 

Mistry, Percy S., and High Powered Expert Committee. 2007. Report of the High Powered Expert Committee on Making Mumbai an International Financial Centre. New Delhi: Sage Publications. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2007/bill128_20070621128_Report_of_the_High_Powered_Expert_Committee_Percy_Mistry.pdf. 

Romano, Roberta. 1993. The Genius of American Corporate Law. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/the-genius-of-american-corporate-law/. 

Romer, Paul. 2010. “Technologies, Rules, and Progress: The Case for Charter Cities.” CGD Essay. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/technologies-rules-and-progress-case-charter-cities. 

Roy, Shubho, Ajay Shah, B. N. Srikrishna, and Somasekhar Sundaresan. 2019. “Building State capacity for regulation in India.” In Regulation in India: Design, Capacity, Performance, edited by Devesh Kapur and Madhav Khosla. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 

Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

Securities and Exchange Board of India. 2012. SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012. Securities and Exchange Board of India. https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/apr-2017/sebi-alternative-investment-funds-regulations-2012-last-amended-on-march-6-2017-_34694.html 

Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64, no. 5 (October): 416–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839. 

Wilmarth, Arthur E., Jr. 2020. Taming the Megabanks: Why We Need a New Glass-Steagall Act. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190606435.001.0001

Source: https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2026/03/gains-from-messy-regulatory-footprints.html