Have you been following the controversy over the Consumer Product Safety Commission? In the wake of various reports of toxic toys, Congress wants to give the CPSC more money and more authority, but acting head Nancy Nord is not interested. In an October 24 letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, Nord wrote that the new powers "could have the unintended consequence of hampering, rather than furthering, consumer product safety." In an interview on The Early Show last week, Nord said, "I want to be hiring more safety inspectors and scientists and compliance officers, I don't want to be hiring lawyers."

Nord's point is that increasing civil penalties might encourage manufacturers to assume a more adversarial stance with respect to the CPSC, reducing cooperation, diverting resources to enforcement actions, and lessening consumer safety. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having none of it and has called for Nord's resignation. Many others have joined the chorus, including John Edwards. And guess what? Nord suddenly is guilty of ethical lapses, according to Pelosi's colleagues in the House.

But what about Nancy Nord's theory of regulation: more inspectors, fewer lawyers? Is is a plausible approach? Perhaps, though the anecdotes about toxic toys coming out of this controversy are not good, and the Bush administration has no credibility when it comes to charges of complicity with industry. So instead of a real debate about regulatory policy, we are left with bumper sticker soundbites.

Retailing | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e54f904b398834

Links to weblogs that reference Nancy Nord's Theory of Regulation: