The past five years have seen a dramatic increase in scholars working to supplement or challenge accounts of structural injustice. Almost without exception, scholars in this area assume that the move from personal responsibility to political or public responsibility will represent a net gain in justice, at least in modern liberal regimes. In this essay, I challenge this assumption and introduce the concept of “structural hobbling” as a parallel cause of injustice, but one whose origins derive from neutral state activities rather than from intentional bad faith or diffuse private action (as in structural injustice). Using health-care regulations as a lens, I offer two narratives of individuals navigating health-care regulations that demonstrate how seemingly neutral regulatory decisions create regressive hobbling effects. Structural hobbling challenges structural-injustice theorists to take more seriously the complex and often subtle ways in which apparently benevolent state activity can create downstream injustice, while adding complexity to existing narratives around public responsibility and what it demands.

In a new era of regulatory oversight, the US Supreme Court upended traditional Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous Congressional provisions in Loper in June 2024. Federal courts were instructed to make their own assessments of statutory authorities amid an onslaught of public health agency challenges surfacing nationally. Even so, SCOTUS may be eyeing further limits on agency powers despite clear and substantial repercussions for the health of the nation.

Traditionally, corruption is seen as a rational pursuit of profit, focusing on personal gain. However, this view overlooks other influences. This paper focuses on the behavioral aspects of corruption, providing a deeper understanding of its complexities, and addressing the factors overlooked by conventional approaches. Reviewing some of the literature, we highlight how researchers have approached corruption from the perspective of behavioral sciences. Additionally, we examine how the emerging discipline of Behavioral Public Policy (BPP) employs innovative methods to reduce corrupt practices, offering new strategies that transcend traditional perspectives. Our paper innovates by demonstrating how corruption can be reduced by substituting traditional regulations with nonregulatory tools like nudges and sludge audits, or by leveraging digital choice architectures to minimize human-to-human interactions, known corruption enablers. By reducing regulations and administrative red tape, and introducing digital frameworks, these tools simplify processes minimizing opportunities for corrupt behavior. In this paper, we aim to infuse corruption research with a behavioral twist, a digital approach, and a deregulatory perspective, offering policymakers an alternative path to foster transparency, accountability and ethical governance. While this approach will not completely eradicate corruption, it strives to show how BPP can reduce its occurrences.

President Biden’s first-day memo “Modernizing Regulatory Review” directs the Office of Management and Budget to “propose procedures that take into account the distributional consequences of regulations… to ensure that regulatory initiatives appropriately benefit and do not inappropriately burden disadvantaged, vulnerable, or marginalized communities.” This paper makes two contributions. First, it discusses how economic analysis can transparently provide the information needed to make value-judgments about what distributional effects are appropriate and inappropriate. Second, it discusses the distributional consequences of regulations that are either designed to reduce internalities or might have the additional benefit of reducing internalities. Examples include tobacco product regulations, appliance energy efficiency standards, and automobile fuel efficiency standards. In many cases, the regulations will increase the prices or decrease the availability of goods that disadvantaged consumers prefer. This paper discussed how to determine whether restricting their consumption opportunities creates net benefits or net costs for disadvantaged consumers. Inframarginal consumers who do not change their consumption face higher opportunity costs but do not receive any benefits from reduced internalities. Empirical challenges include the need to quantify the fraction of inframarginal consumers and the size of the internalities.

Hard cider is a sector of a maturing craft beverage industry that continues to experience growth in the United States. Cider is also experiencing challenges, however, such as competition from other alcohol markets, changing consumer preferences, the supply chain, and inflationary pressures. National policy changes may help promote more optimal outcomes for this sector, but public support is important to policy formation. This study uses survey data from a best-worst scaling experiment of consumers in four leading cider-producing states (Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont) to understand preferences toward ten broad cider policy initiatives. The results of multinomial logistic modeling reveal that consumers prefer policies mandating ingredients, nutrition facts, and allergen labeling across all ciders. The least preferred policy initiatives include allowing producers to use vintage on labeling and funding regional cider development. These results have important implications for stakeholders across the industry, including the benefits of labeling disclosures in marketing and the need to improve public awareness of barriers to cider industry development.

The distinct operational characteristics of military aircraft, relative to civil aircraft, have impeded the standardisation of airworthiness management practice across Europe. Standardisation has been further deterred by the intertwined certification and qualification activities specific to military aircraft. The management of airworthiness in European military aviation has undergone significant changes over the past 15 years, with the progress made attributed to the harmonisation efforts driven by the European Defence Agency (EDA). The creation of a Military Airworthiness Authorities Forum and the development of the European Military Airworthiness Requirements (EMAR) have been instrumental in creating a more homogenous regulatory landscape. The examples of five main players of the European aerospace sector, namely France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, are examined from the point of view of adoption and implementation of an EMARs-based system. Their regulatory structures have revealed similarities and primary differences. The EMAR’s framework has enabled a gradual build-up of technical knowhow within the European countries who embraced this, civil-based, framework. All five countries have adopted EMARs, though through a variety of regulatory constructs. Their regulatory structures exhibit diverse practices, especially in how initial and continuing airworthiness is managed. Some countries have also elected to have more than one authority overseeing/been responsible for airworthiness. Closer collaboration between national Military Aviation Authorities (MAAs) can be achieved through standardisation at regulatory structure level. The establishment of a joint MAAs may be the next logical step in the harmonisation process, in line with EDA objective’ for a EU-wide authority with greater powers.

Dairy cows are usually culled and transported from the farm when they no longer meet the farm’s standards for production or are not needed for milk production. Some cows are transported while in poor condition and may deteriorate further during transport. In February 2020, Canadian federal animal transport regulations were revised with the aim to minimise risks to livestock during transport; changes that may impact cull dairy cows included defining compromised cattle and limiting their maximum transport time. This study conducted semi-structured interviews with dairy farmers (n = 6) and cattle haulers (n = 4) in British Columbia, Canada, to gain an in-depth understanding of the effect of the regulations on their practices when shipping and transporting dairy cows to slaughter. Interviews were transcribed in Otter.ai and thematically coded in NVivo 12. While farmer and hauler participants recognised the importance of animal welfare during transport and described practices such as shipping mobile animals to reduce the risk that cows would become non-ambulatory during transport, they also described little change in shipping and transport practices due to the new regulations. Among interviewed participants, barriers to compliance with the regulations appear to be low knowledge of, and mixed or negative attitudes towards the regulations. Participants also described how they felt a lack of communication along the transport chain and limited transport and slaughter infrastructure made compliance difficult. Possible suggestions to remedy these barriers include providing educational resources about the regulations and encouraging communication about cow fitness for transport between responsible parties in the transport chain.

Animal well-being issues are addressed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through a variety of agencies and in various formats. Most farmers are good stewards of their animals and will raise them according to societal demands as supported by market choices. Management standards that are perceived to improve upon current practices are being demanded of farmers by buyers of animal products, including corporate restaurant chains and groceries. Professional organisations, USDA, and university representatives, help to address well-being issues and help to create and evaluate standards. The USDA provides leadership in several cooperative programs involving activists and industry, coordinates certification programs, and provides liaisons to multi-state university research committees. A USDA Animal Well-Being Work Group facilitates communications among agency personnel. The USDA developed the Animal Welfare Issues Compendium, a national animal well-being symposium, and cooperates with industry, activists and universities on projects. The USDA provides grant funds for projects that are encouraged to include a component on animal well-being. Special grant funds from Congress have resulted in educational and research projects that complement existing USDA national research and educational initiatives. Regulatory commitments by USDA include the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

Cage space requirements for non-human primates in the United States of America are less than those in European countries. Studies in support of the assumption that the US legal minimum cage size provides adequate space have limited value because they only tested cages without structural enhancement. It is not surprising that non-human primates cannot be animated to be more active or to behave in more species-typical manners by only providing them with extra barren space. Explicitly stipulating that all cages have to be equipped with properly installed, elevated structures appropriate to each species and age category would make the US standards more adequate. Such structures would no longer restrict the caged primate to an unnatural, permanent terrestrial lifestyle but would allow the animal to make use of the arboreal, ‘safe’ dimension to which she/he is biologically adapted. Minimal height requirements will have to be upgraded in the US to accommodate these ethological considerations.

Various animal welfare assurance programs are being used to encourage or require the adoption of animal welfare standards in food production, and to assure the public that such standards are followed. The programs involve five main formats. Non-mandatory codes/guidelines are relatively easy to institute and appear well-supported by the industry, but provide only minimal assurance to the public unless measures are taken to ensure compliance. Programs based on government regulations and inter-governmental agreements are more challenging to institute; they are likely to generate less industry acceptance, but may provide more public confidence if enforcement is adequate. Product differentiation programs, and retailer policies requiring products to meet certain standards, serve a range of functions; these may generate public confidence but only for products covered. The various programs include several types of requirements. Requirements that are designed to maintain animal health and functioning have a widely accepted scientific basis, are often easy to incorporate into existing production systems, and often provide economic benefits, but do not fully address public concerns over animal welfare in some cultures. Requirements that address pain, distress and other affective states, and those that accommodate certain natural behaviour, have a growing but less traditional scientific rationale and appear likely to generate public confidence; however, they sometimes require significant changes to existing practices. Requirements for more natural surroundings (outdoor, free-range) seem to generate public confidence, but appear most likely to increase costs, least likely to be supported by the existing industry, and may involve trade-offs with productivity and with other aspects of animal welfare. The various formats and requirements provide a range of policy options for addressing animal welfare concerns in different cultural, industry and market contexts.

Although there is still some debate regarding whether fish have the capacity to feel pain, recent scientific research seems to support the notion that fish can indeed suffer. However, the continued scientific discourse has led to questions regarding how members of the public perceive issues of pain and welfare in fish. A questionnaire was developed and randomly distributed to 700 members of the general public in New Zealand. Questionnaires gathered basic demographic information, information regarding respondents’ participation in and opinions on angling practice, and opinions about fish welfare and pain. The response rate was 62.4% (437/700). The primary aim of the study was to assess public concerns for the impact of catch-and-release angling (CRA) on the welfare of fish. Most respondents indicated a belief that fish are capable of feeling some pain although older respondents scored the capacity of fish to feel pain lower than younger respondents. Likewise, most respondents believed that CRA causes pain and compromises survival in fish. Principle Component Analysis identified two major components within responses. These were: i) importance placed on good fishing techniques; and ii) concern for pain and survival of fish. Female respondents showed more concern about angling practices and their impact on pain and survival of fish than male respondents. Respondents who participate in CRA and considered it acceptable showed less concern for pain and survival in fish than both respondents who do not participate and those who considered CRA unacceptable. The majority of respondents considered angling an acceptable pastime (65%; 284/435) but also indicated support for the introduction of guidelines and regulations to improve fish welfare in the future (76.4%; 334/434). Those respondents that did not believe regulations were necessary provided statistically lower importance scores for both pain and survival in fish and good angling practices than respondents that did. Education about good angling practices may provide the best route by which fish welfare can be improved.