Articles

How Much Better Is Better Regulation? Assessing the Impact of the Better Regulation Package on the European Union – A Research Agenda

A. ALEMANNO

European Journal of Risk Regulation

2015, vol. 6, n°3, pp.344-356

Departments: Tax & Law, GREGHEC (CNRS)

http://ejrr.lexxion.eu/article/EJRR/2015/3/4


Emboldened by the Spitzenkandidaten process, the new European Commission emerges as the most political yet. The Commission asks EU citizens to judge its operation by its ability ‘to deliver solutions to the big issues that cannot be addressed by the Member States alone’. The Better Regulation Package translates this political commitment into an actionable approach assuring EU citizens that the Commission will remain ‘big on big things, small on small things’. To deliver on this promise, the Commission extends the Impact Assessment system, renews its consultation procedures and adds a few institutional mechanisms so as to enhance its ‘ability to deliver’ throughout the policy cycle. But in order to do so the Commission needs to bind – and somehow control – the European Parliament and the Council, on the one hand, and the Member States, on the other, in relation to their commitment to openness, participation and evidence-based policymaking. While legitimate, this attempt raises serious doubts about the compatibility of this reform with the principle of separation of powers and, in particular, that of institutional balance. A closer look at the Better Regulation Package reveals an entirely new understanding of the Commission’s own prerogatives and the way it intends to exercise its legislative and regulatory powers. And this in spite of the apparent continuity between the new and old Better Regulation initiatives and the instruments it had chosen to attain the declared objectives. With a view to lay out a future research agenda on EU Better Regulation, this article identifies the most immediate questions raised by the publication of the Package and makes a first timid attempt at addressing some of them. It aims at determining how much better, if any, is the new Better Regulation Package. It does so by discussing, first, the major novelties enacted by the Commission within its own Better Regulation system and, second, those proposed in the framework of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation

A Configural Approach to Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams

S. KUDARAVALLI, S. FARAJ, S. L. JOHNSON

MIS Quarterly

Forthcoming

Departments: Informations Systems and Operations Management, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Keywords: Software development, software teams, expertise coordination, configuration, centralization, knowledge tacitness, team conflict, coordination success

http://misq.org/a-configural-approach-to-coordinating-expertise-in-software-development-teams.html


Despite the recognition of how important expertise coordination is to the performance of software development teams, understanding of how expertise is coordinated in practice is limited. We adopt a configural approach to develop a theoretical model of expertise coordination that differentiates between design collaboration and technical collaboration. We propose that neither a strictly centralized, top-down model nor a largely decentralized approach is superior. Our model is tested in a field study of 71 software development teams. We conclude that because design work addresses ill-structured problems with diverse potential solutions, decentralization of design collaboration can lead to greater coordination success and reduced team conflict. Conversely, technical work benefits from centralized collaboration. We find that task knowledge tacitness strengthens these relationships between collaboration configuration and coordination outcomes and that team conflict mediates the relationships. Our findings underline the need to differentiate between technical and design collaboration and point to the importance of certain configurations in reducing team conflict and increasing coordination success in software development teams. This paper opens up new research avenues to explore the collaborative mechanisms underlying knowledge team performance.

A Legal Analysis of Packaging Standardisation Requirements Under EU Law - The Case of ‘Plain Packaging’ in the United Kingdom

A. ALEMANNO

Journal of Business Law

Forthcoming

Departments: Tax & Law, GREGHEC (CNRS)


A Mathematical Turn in Business Regulation: The Rise of Legal Indicators

D. RESTREPO AMARILES

International Journal of Law in Context

Forthcoming

Departments: Tax & Law


A Model of Mental Accounting and Reference Price Adaptation

M. BAUCELLS, W. HWANG

Management Science

Forthcoming

Departments: Informations Systems and Operations Management

Keywords: Mental accounting, reference price, loss aversion, sunk-cost fallacy, payment depreciation, reluctance to trade, flat-rate bias.

http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2569


Achieving High Growth in Policy-Dependent Industries: Differences between Startups and Corporate-Backed Ventures

R. DURAND, G. PANAYIOTIS (PANIKOS)

Long Range Planning

Forthcoming

Departments: Strategy & Business Policy, GREGHEC (CNRS)

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2794262


This research examines which firms achieve high growth in policy-dependent industries. Using the European solar photovoltaic industry as our empirical setting, we investigate the impact of policy support on the growth of independent startups and corporate-backed ventures operating across countries with diverse policy conditions. We find that producers' growth is positively linked to policy generosity, and negatively linked to policy discontinuity. Moreover, corporate-backed ventures are less affected by policy generosity compared to entrepreneurial startups, and less impacted by policy discontinuity as well. Our results underline the importance of country- and firm-level differences in analyzing firms' response to regulatory policies, and point to the need for a better understanding of the unintended consequences of policies designed to support new industries.