On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Vanderbilt law professor Ganesh Sitaraman and University of Pennsylvania law professor Shelley Welton. Both guests are experts in regulatory policy and are co-authors of a new case book Networks, Platforms, and Utilities.
Case books serve as the academic bedrock of law school classes. They are collections of seminal cases that facilitate the understanding of a specific field of law. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities collects primary source material that cover infrastructure areas such as transportation, communications, energy, finance, and technology. The subject of regulated industries has fallen away as a law school class in recent decades, but the industries did not disappear, nor did an important role for law and regulation. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities is intended to revitalize this area of teaching and scholarship (0:45-23:36).
One key distinction that helps structure the conversation on regulation is the difference between economic and social regulation. Economic regulation essentially overseas an industrial area, generally with the purpose of managing a natural monopoly. Social regulation addresses a wider range of political purposes, including addressing externalities such as pollution. In both types of regulation, questions of governance, democratic accountability, and social justice are present. And, of course, these two categories sometimes overlap (23:37-31:51). Net metering is an examples of a case of economic regulation that is also intertwined with broader social issues, particularly climate change, given the effects of that policy on renewable energy adoption (31:52-39:17).
Many of the cases covered in the book interact with antitrust law. In utilities-related cases, introducing competition as a remedy is not an appropriate solution for the marketplace. In situations creating competitive markets is not feasible, there is a second set of tools that can help achieve social goals in regulated, non-competitive markets. In these cases, the democratic process helps determine what goals the regulator should try to achieve (39:18-54:48).
Livermore, Sitaraman, and Welton discuss how to deliberate over these issues. One key question is whether it is possible to have robust participation when many of the questions regulators face are highly technical. Welton ends by discussion a hopeful example of powerful public participation is a series of conversations held by the New York Public Service Commission with low income ratepayers across New York. In her view, these individuals, who engaged in a particular governance process, were able to tell their stories and eventually push New York to adopt a different method of pricing electricity (54:49-1:04:11). Overall, Sitaraman and Welton are optimistic that the current political movement is shifting in favor of greater economic regulation, so that the law examined in Networks, Platforms and Utilities will only grow in coming years.
Tag Archives: urban
Season 1, Episode 29
On today’s episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with UVA Law colleague Rich Schragger a leading expert on local government, federalism, and urban policy and the author of City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age.
Schragger begins the episode by discussing the idea of ‘city power,’ which is meant to challenge the usual narratives about local governments and cities. (0:42 – 2:41)
Livermore and Schragger turn to one view, of cities as selling a suite of policies and amenities. In his book, he discusses the mistake of misinterpreting sorting as a theory of economic growth. Schragger is skeptical of claims that a city has failed because of a decrease in population, which can have other causes. He argues that even in an economic downturn, cities need to provide good municipal services. (2:44 – 10:40)
They discuss theories of growth in cities, debating if growth is a policy independent processes. Schragger elaborates on the relationship between institutions and growth, saying that they will have a relationship but at what scale? He explains his attraction to Jane Jacobs’s ideas on why economic development happens in cities. (10:45 – 18:41)
Schragger explains two common views of cities: that they are products in markets or that they are byproducts of large-scale social forces. He prefers to think of a city as a process akin to an organic phenomenon. (18:42 – 28:07)
Schragger argues that we are still radically unsure what causes economic growth in a city. He emphasizes that cities should provide basic municipal services to their people as a matter of social justice, not as a matter of growth seeking. (28:10 – 31:47) He sees the lack of control over growth as in some ways liberating. Cities are free to implement policies such has a minimum living wage, and environmental regulations because ultimately these policies will not hurt the growth of the city. (31:48 – 35:17)
The discussion transitions into the distinctions between intercity and intracity competition. Schragger talks about how city population increases/decreases are attributed to the wrong factors. He uses the example of the urban resurgence in Charlottesville wrongly being attributed to the downtown mall. (35:20 – 43:13)
Livermore poses the question about the possibility of ever truly learning how policy affects cities. Schragger re-emphasizes that cities need to invest in services that improve the living of the people already there rather than attracting new people. Schragger argues that cities should act for justice, not growth. (43:20 – 53:01)
Livermore and Schragger discuss their views on redistribution, focusing on minimum wage. Schragger says the living minimum wage movement represents a proof of concept. He describes how large cities, such as Tokyo, New York City, London, have economic power that is used to leverage location advantage to do redistribution. He compares the power differences between city states and nation states, explaining cities’ locational leverage gives them more power to tax and redistribute than nations which flips the narrative of traditional federalism. (53:10 – 1:03:26)
Livermore closes the discussion by describing states as vestigial things in our constitutional system, asking Schragger his thoughts on the value of states. Schragger agrees that US states are in some ways a product of a flawed compromise and have lost their reason for being. He explains how one can be opposed to states but in favor of cities. He expresses that state-based federalism doesn’t work because the actual divide is not between states, but between cities and rural areas in those states. (1:03:31 – 1:11:40)
Season 1, Episode 24
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Michelle Wilde Anderson, a law professor at Stanford. Anderson is the author of The Fight To Save The Town: Reimagining Discarded America, published in June 2022.
Anderson begins by explaining the subtitle of the book, which draws attention to places that have both high poverty and few governmental resources, challenges that tend to be mutually reinforcing. Anderson discusses the reasons she chose the four places that the book focuses on: they’re exceptional places in terms of rich histories and good leadership, they contribute to a larger story when studied together because of their highlighted differences, and they represent the larger range of towns facing the problem of being poor and broke. (1:17 – 5:28)
Livermore asks Anderson, why she decided to focus on narratives rather than data and policy solutions. Anderson explains that the dominant stories that we tell about these places typically include violence, corruption, and hopelessness. These narratives are destructive to the political will to keep working on these hard problems. She wanted to acknowledge that the hardships are devastating and real, but there are also extraordinary people working on these problems and we can’t wish these places away. (5:29 – 9:40)
Anderson highlights a common way of thinking which she considers the “suitcases solution,” which encourages individuals to move towards growth and jobs to solve chronic poverty. Anderson argues that this has been a failed approach. Ideally, people would have options: to move on to opportunity, or to stay where they are without being trapped in intergenerational poverty.
A major challenge in many of these places is trust. This is especially destructive because poverty requires communities to come together. This is where the other part of the title of the book comes in, The Fight To Save The Town; it highlights how people can weave society back together and rebuild this basic trust.. (9:41 – 24:59)
A problem with the suitcase solution is that people end up unable to move because they lack resources or become traumatized before that becomes a possibility. The experiment of addressing deindustrialization through domestic migration has been tried for the past 40 years and doesn’t work. (25:00 – 34:16) Livermore and Anderson highlight the importance of a town building the foundation for people to participate in the labor market. (34:17 – 41:25)
Livermore asks Anderson about the redevelopment approach in contrast with investing in current residents. Anderson mentions that local public policy is often focused on downtown redevelopment. Anderson encourages pushing aside those kinds of interventions and investing in the people of the town. (41:26 – 49:58)
In regards to these different towns, Livermore asks: Are there broader lessons or general principles that can be implemented in a more systematic way? Anderson responds that she is not confident in a playbook for this resident-centered government or that it even exists. People who work on the frontline of the challenges rarely believe that it is possible to export their model to another town. Anderson emphasizes the importance of mutual aid, social repair, and social cooperation as a universal component of both progress and hope. (49:59 – 56:27)
To conclude, Livermore inquires about Anderson’s thoughts on the relationship between problems of the contemporary era and labor history in the United States. Anderson responds by noting that there are few periods in our history where we have had an explicit language to discuss poverty and a focus on empowerment, solidarity, and progress. The Labor Movement is one example of this language and leadership in writing. She claims that she is drawn to these individuals who discuss poverty as a source of strength and solidarity and who believe in the power of people. (56:28 – 1:00:47)
Season 1, Episode 20
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Moira O’Neill, a professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at the University of Virginia who also has a joint appointment at UVA Law. Her work covers land use, climate change, equity, and resilience. A specific area of her research is land use law and its relationship to housing affordability, integration, and environmental impacts in California.
O’Neill discusses the motivation for her recent study on the regulatory choices that restrict the development of different kinds of housing. (1:39 – 4:17). O’Neill describes the biggest highlight of the study: there’s incredible variability in how jurisdictions apply both state environmental review and their own law. (4:18 – 6:16) There is also a vast amount of local discretion. Most approval processes are discretionary rather than through a faster ministerial pathway that is contemplated by state law. (6:19 – 13:24)
O’Neill points out that environmental impact reports were quite uncommon in most of the observations because there is a large amount of environmental review happening at the planning level. Theoretically, this in-depth environmental review will explore the potential of environmental impacts associated with the jurisdiction’s developmental desires to facilitate their respective policy goals. (13:25 – 17:50) Livermore and O’Neill discuss the exemptions which the state has created for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) for classes of development that the political process has determined are important for facilitating climate policy. (17:51 – 21:45)
O’Neill explains the risks associated with longer time frames in the development process. The lengthened process in San Francisco invites important questions about the role of politics. (21:46 – 25:18) O’Neill mentions a San Francisco law that allows neighbors to request a discretionary public hearing for any new development. This provision can be triggered by a neighbor or an interested party, creating uncertainties for developers, especially of affordable housing. (24:19 – 33:10)
Livermore asks: What is the nature of the politics that are in play here? O’Neill responds that there are certain processes that seem to open the door for political disputes or opposition to development. (33:11 – 37:34) Livermore and O’Neill discuss whether this involvement of politics is necessarily an intrusion, or an appropriate deliberative process. O’Neill attempts to contextualize the answer in terms of California’s law on how land use operates, answering that the challenge is finding the right balance. She also mentions the risk of NIMBYism. (37:35 – 48:49)
O’Neill discusses some of the differences between jurisdictions in California, providing an example in which participants in interviews that worked in both San Francisco and Redwood City described both processes as complex, but Redwood city as more predictable and straightforward. (48:50 – 54:21)
Livermore asks O’Neill a bigger picture question: How much of this issue is a technical problem with technical fixes? How much of this is reflecting underlying political and economic realities about conflict? O’Neill answers that there is no question in her mind that there are underlying factors that manifest in how the law is applied. However, while there’s not a simple legislative or regulatory fix, that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t do more on the regulatory and technical sides. (54:22 – 1:01:26)
Livermore and O’Neill end the episode by covering the concept of good politics. O’Neill highlights that she thinks there can be a disconnect between what people think is happening in a jurisdiction and what is actually happening, which is problematic for policy making. O’Neill concludes that good information is valuable for good politics and good deliberation. (1:01:27 – 1:04:46)
Free Range Podcast 