Van Der Heijden, J (2009) International comparative analysis of building regulations: An analytical tool. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 1(1), pp. 9-25. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce a tool for the international comparative analysis of regulatory regimes in the field of building regulation. Design/methodology/approach – On the basis of a heuristic model drawn from regulatory literature, a typology of building regulatory regimes is introduced. Each type is illustrated with a number of reallife examples from North America, Europe, and Australia. Findings – Governments worldwide have introduced building regulatory regimes with a variety of designs. On an abstract level, these designs are shown to have a comparable pattern. This pattern is utilised to draw up a typology of regimedesigns that can be placed on a sliding scale, with a “pure public regime” at the one end and a “pure private regime” at the other. Intermediate regimes display characteristics of both. Originality/value – The comparative analysis of different regimes assists policy makers by demonstrating which combinations of regulatory characteristics can provide the best results in particular instances. The typology introduced by the paper assists this process by providing a tool for systematic analysis of complex reallife cases.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; specifications; technical regulations |
| Index terms: | regulation, methodology, comparative analysis, specification, Australia, heuristic, Europe, building regulation |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, risk assessment, political science, regulatory law, research methods, physical geography and landforms, Geography, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Governance, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here