Abstract
Problem. The public's health, safety, and economic welfare depend on a regulatory process that sometimes exercises risk-reduction actions after public concerns manifest into societal problems. It is important to examine and evaluate the reasons for regulatory inaction and to further our understanding of any regulatory gaps in policy processes. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the factors that contribute to gaps in regulation, so as to discern and synthesize them into a typology of policy inaction. Subsequently, the focus was to assess the typology by applying it to a comparative case study about the risk-reduction responses of the United States and Canada to the public health hazard of dioxin. Methodology. A qualitative mixed-methods strategy was selected as a means to, first, develop a typology of policy inaction and, second, assess its efficacy. First, data were collected/analyzed for the purpose of developing a framework of policy inaction, which was subsequently schematized into a typology of policy inaction. Second, more data were collected and analyzed, so as to produce a limited assessment of the typology's efficacy using a comparative case study design. Theoretical Framework. Four theories were chosen to guide this research. Bounded rationality indicates that intellectual limits lend to "satisficing" decisions rather than to optimum ones. Public choice theory posits that although policymakers' actions are intended to generate public good, they are bounded by personal choices. Complexity theory contends that policymakers are challenged by the intricacies of the policy environment. Finally, incremental decision making recognizes that the complexity of policymaking necessitates malleability. Data Analysis. Research inquiries and related factual claims assessed the presence of the elements characterizing regulatory gaps and their impact on risk-reduction actions. For both countries, the findings confirmed that regulatory inexperience constrained the adoption of proactive risk-reduction actions for the public health hazard of dioxin. Conclusions and Recommendations. The findings indicate that regulators' knowledge capacity was inherently shaped by the political culture and environment of each country. This research collectively suggests that regulators' ability to adopt proactive risk-reduction actions to public health hazards necessitates a change to three governance elements: culture, capacity, and insight.