Regulation and its metrics: three views of the cathedral
本文分析了三种公共政策与监管的分析框架，并从其基础概念中推导出度量指标，通过欧盟信用评级机构监管的案例比较了不同框架的逻辑与优势，主张基于理论的方法和分析多元主义。
Measuring regulation is a vital but contested task. Despite growing interest, most metrics are either rooted in ad hoc assumptions or shaped by international organisations’ priorities, rather than grounded in robust conceptual frameworks. We offer an original analysis of three analytical frameworks of public policy and regulation, and derive metrics from their foundational concepts. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, rooted in institutional analysis, public administration, and political economy, sees rulemaking as the design of action situations. Legalisation, grounded in international law and relations, assesses the hardness of multi-level regulatory architectures through measures of obligation, precision, and delegation. The density-intensity approach, anchored in public policy analysis, measures regulatory content – namely, expansion or dismantling – as the result of policy decisions. We illustrate the distinct logics and metrics through a comparative application to EU regulation of credit rating agencies. Each framework sheds light on different aspects of regulatory change and offers unique advantages. Rather than advocating for a single framework, we argue for theory-grounded approaches and analytic pluralism. We conclude with guidance on when and how each framework can be usefully applied, supporting clarity in the use and design of metrics.