DEREGULATION: THE PRINCIPAL INCONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS1

The authors suggest that most arguments in favor of deregulation are really double‐edged swords which render the debate over deregulation inconclusive at best. They challenge the following positions as inconclusive: (1) that deregulation per se is good; (2) that it protects rights; (3) that deregulation removes uncertainties concerning the marketplace; (4) that it reduces “nitpicking” and coercive regulation; (5) that deregulation promotes greater productivity and efficiency; (6) that it combats inflation; (7) that regulations often cannot be justified by benefits over costs; and (8) there are serious problems of attaining optimum levels of regulation. Special interest groups in favor of deregulation are seen to bear a remarkable resemblance to groups opposed to deregulation.