Capture Theory and Public Interest - Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Capture Theory and Public Interest. Answer: Introduction: Entry for a foreign investor in the Indian market has to be necessarily marked by a proper strategy. The strategy basically depends on the prevailing conditions like opportunities, type of business, investment sector and many more. The foreign investors can either setup their own entity or can establish a LLP (Limited Liability Partnership). The LLP is different from normal Indian entities and has to be considered under a different set of rules i.e. Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 whereas the other national businesses are treated under the Companies Act 2013 (Basu Mishra, 2015). The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India guides the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion which is liable to issue the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy every year in respect to the foreign investments made in the country. The structure of the policy is made by the rules and regulation made by The Reserve Bank of India, Indias central bank. Only a handful of segments like insurance, real estate and non-banking financial corporation are the ones that are monitored and require apt permission while the other type of investments are free to be made in any conditions. FDI into LLPs is also permitted but only with respect to certain conditions. Also changes in the FDI may be expected by the Indian government as it has plans to attract greater foreign investments and capital (Iyengar, 2015). Income Tax is managed as per the Income Tax Act 1961, while the indirect tax which includes: Value added Tax Custom and Excise Duty can be altered as per the central and state laws. Corporate Tax which is currently 30% is about to get reduced to 25% as per the government. The government is also making plans and is set to introduce Goods and Sales Tax (GST) by 2016 which would remove the complexity of different taxes (Panchal, 2016). Exit strategy and dispute settlement in India It is well known that getting in the market is a very pressure related thing which should have alternatives and tight precautions which is referred to as the Exit strategy. An exit strategy is important because: If the partnership isnt on the same track. If a part of the authority gets into financial troubles. If the goals of the company with respect to the partner changes. Changes in market circumstances or environment. Cashing out on a project that is triumphant. Settlement of disputes in India Court system is prevalent in India to manage both central and state laws. This system is divided into three levels: The lower district courts. The high courts. The Supreme court- apex court of India. It takes time for cases to get solved in India due to the previously accumulated cases. So the commercial problems are managed in an alternate way which is named as Arbitration. A comparability test was run between the Ind AS and the IFRS which resulted in major deviation and many other differences in other areas. In respect to mandatory deviation, it was seen that IFRS offers multiple policy choices while Ind AS lays stress on one. These include: IFRS allows the income statement to be presented separately while Ind AS demands for a summoned one. IFRS categorizes profit and loss on the basis of function while Ind AS does it on nature. Categorization of interest and dividend as financing/investing cash flows. The above mentioned points can be a test for Indian companies if they reside under a global brand which follows other international rules. Another matter arises where a company has the right to follow the prescribed IFRS or to function as per another set of alternative rules. Singapore has a central location in the Asian Pacific which makes it the hub of many financial institutions which have chosen it as their headquarters or primary settled place. According to the recent records, Singapore is only behind London and New York in the Global Financial Index Centre. Singapore recently beat Japan to become the largest financial exchange hub in the whole of Asia (Li-ann, 2012). All the financial exchanges all over Singapore are maintained by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). The MAS is also the central bank of Singapore. The MAS takes over on: Merchant banks. Financial advisers. Business trusts. Payments and settlement systems. Securities and future fund management. Money brokers. Finance companies. Trust companies, and Money-charging and remittance businesses. As per MAS. (2018), six key operations of MAS to manage the above segments are: Financial surveillance. Exercising resolution powers over financial institutions. Regulation, this includes setting risk-based capital and prudential requirements. Authorization, this includes monitoring the institutions which provide financial services in Singapore. Monitoring any rule breach by financial institutions, including prudential and anti-money laundering and eliminating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), and Enforcement, which includes strict action against those institutions and individuals who breach prudential, AML/CFT and market conduct requirements (Shenoy et. al, 2009). There are other authorities as well which monitor and manage the conducts of business in Singapore like: The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), which maintains the business entities. The Singapore Exchange (SGX), which is the lone stock exchange in Singapore. It also has a key role in dictatorial processes related to: Member supervision. Issuer regulation. Listings, and Market surveillance. Legislation and other non-statutory publications There are different legislative rules for managing the above sectors: The Financial Advisers Act. The Business Trust Act. The Finance Companies Act. The Banking Act. The Insurance Act. The Money-Changing and Remittance Business Act. The Monetary Authority of Singapore Act. The Securities and Futures Act, and The Trust Companies Act. All the instructions, procedures, codes, circulars, FAQs and notifications are introduced by the MAS with respect to powers issued as per the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, as it is the lone financial services monitoring system for the abovementioned legislation (Andrew Boon Leong, 2012). IFRS Singapore has a dense structured IFRS in comparison to Malaysia and Indonesia. But some problems still prevail in IFRS with relation to the financial services. It was considered positive but still, the question was raised to whether it is useful and meaningful or not which have proved to be nonsense as the IFRS has been a success for accumulating capital exchanges on a high in Singapore. Analysis of Environment of India and Singapore using Capture theory The theory of regulatory capture theory might be useful because the impact of government regulation is intended for addressing the requirements of industry regulation. This means that legislators are captured by the industry, the regulation organization will be controlled by the industry finally, and the lawmen as a whole also become captured by the industry. Hence, the government regulations legislatures or government regulatory organizations facilitate in representing only the groups having special interests instead of the common public. In other words, the regulation of government intends to attain social benefits while the outcome of the special interest group is rent-seeking in nature. However, in some of the cases, government regulations can also bring various advantages for benefiting the common public but it is not the original government intention of implementation and regulation of the government (Mankiw William, 2011). In contrast to this, it is the accidental outcome of the regulation at the most. The first and foremost characteristic that sheds light on the fact that a regulatory environment may be captured is the economic rationale of such environment. The reason behind such perspective can be attributed to the fact that vested interests in an industry can have the highest financial holding in regulatory activity and are more likely to be encouraged to affect the regulatory body than the dispersed individual consumers, each of whom has very minimal incentives to try to influence the regulators (Mankiw Taylor, 2011). Furthermore, capture can also be implemented in situations wherein taxpayers or consumers have very little or poor understanding of underlying issues and the businesses enjoy a knowledgeable advantage. It is also notable that a regulatory agency must be safeguarded from outside influence as much as possible. In relation to this, it must be noted that large industries that possess a huge amount of power and resources can easily capture the regulatory bodies and u se such power to block rules at the state, provincial, or federal level that the voters may desire even though domestic interests can thwart national priorities. Hence, this is another characteristic which states that large companies having a relationship with federalism might shed light upon the fact that the regulatory environment is captured as a whole. For instance, industries associated with mining, banking, energy, construction of weapon systems, etc can easily outperform the regulatory environment and make it perform according to its wishes. In addition to this, when it can be seen that there are transfers of job betwixt the regulated and the regulator, it highlights the presence of a captured regulatory environment (World Bank, 2014). Similarly, when there is an evidence of payment from the regulated to the regulator, it signifies that the regulatory environment is captured. For example, when it comes to India, it can be observed that people who retire from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd are again employed in higher positions in AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board). Such AERB is the nuclear regulator in India whereas NPCIL is a PSU owned by the Indian government. Such change of jobs shed light on the interests of conflicts that prevail. Besides, it has also been witnessed that the advisory committee of AERB are accommodated with people retired from or serving in NPCIL, DAE (Department of Atomic Energy), etc. Furthermore, the funding for the AERB also comes from the DAE whose nuclear installations are needed to be regulated by the AERB. Hence, the characteristic of funding betwixt the regulator and regulator is also fulfilled in this scenario as the independence of AERB is compromised. These characteristics clearly shed light on the fact that AERB is captured (Potter, 2014). Nevertheless, this also portrays a question mark whether the AERB being the nuclear regulator of India is serving the interests of its people in an effective way. In Singapore, the entire financial segment is governed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and it is also one of the few banks that operates with the government by reporting directly to the P.M. This is the reason why the Singapore government decided to appoint a cabinet minister as the chairman of MAS. This sheds light on the fact that there is a norm of transfer of jobs between the regulated and the regulator. Besides, MAS being a single financial sector governing entity is prone to risks from becoming succumbed to group think or politicised as a whole. Such sectoral model is clearly prone to a regulatory capture because firstly, there is a single powerful entity who is governing the entire financial sector of Singapore and secondly, the authority has a relationship with federalism wherein it has to sit and operate with the government of Singapore. Therefore, if the government had d ecided to appoint its cabinet minister as the first chairman of MAS, there has to be some kind of relationship whether economic or not, betwixt the government and the bank. Nevertheless, it may be feasible that the bank must have had some materialistic capture motive that has resulted in the government taking such illogical step. In such regulatory capture, the captured regulators purpose is entirely based on self-interest (Regine, 2012). Therefore, it might have happened that the decision of appointment of a cabinet minister as the chairman of MAS has resulted from political donations, bribery, or regulators wishes to sustain the funding of the government (Christina, 2008). However, the successive governments have played a key role in the present scenario by making the arrangement work through fiscal responsibilities and avoidance from interfering in the day to day affairs of MAS. Conclusion Regulatory capture theory is a part of the economics of rules and regulations. It intends to describe the rationale and reality of the governments economic regulation. From the aforesaid analysis, capture theory clearly postulates that the present industry or activity players seek to impact and ultimately take over the functioning of a regulated bureau or agency so that its affairs are directed towards benefitting the participants of such industry instead of the general public. Taking into account the regulatory environment of India, it is observable that the country is prone to several problems like taxation, foreign investment policy, entry options, etc. Furthermore, for the adoption of IFRS methods, the existing accounting standards of India are insufficient considering the requirements of being a global brand in such competitive environment (Sharp, 2014). These character traits shed light that India as a regulatory environment is easily prone to be captured. Besides, the regulato rs of Indian economy who desire maximum number of votes in the elections are the ones who can become the regulated. This is the reason why the relationship betwixt AERB and NPCIL are been reflected. It clearly shows that there are transfer of jobs betwixt such regulated and the regulator. In addition, funding of the AERB also comes from the Department of Atomic Energy. Therefore, India as a regulatory environment is surely prone to capture theory because the Indian government prioritizes economic interests instead of the welfare of the Indian public. This is the reason why AERB has failed to discharge its duties towards the general public (Sharp, 2014). Moreover, the dispute settlement issues that prevail in the regulatory environment of India also gives confidence to the government so that they can compromise the requirements of the general public for the betterment of the regulatory industry. In contrast to this, when it comes to Singapore, although there is one financial regulator MAS that governs all banking and financial regulations across the country, yet it must be taken into account that the MAS itself sits with the Singapore government. Furthermore, Singapore has also failed to adopt the best methods for IFRS and instead, it faces issues in relation to financial services. Nevertheless, there is always a risk of MAS becoming succumbed to groupthink or becoming politicized as a whole. Besides, the Singapore government has a better opportunity when it comes to capturing theory as it does not have to make arrangements with different industries and instead, only one major industry can allow it to gain a competitive advantage in the market that is not intended for the well-being of the general public (Thomas et. al, 2010). Therefore, these points shed light on the fact that the captured regulators objective is primarily based on self-interest and without powerful policie s and procedures in the countrys regulatory environment; the captured theory cannot be avoided. Overall, such capturing remains ongoing in a way that the regulations remain unfavorable to the interests of the players in the regulated industry but they attain the position of turning the situation around in a way that works for the benefit of the entire industry instead of the public. References Andrew Boon Leong, P. (2012). The Law of Contract in Singapore. Singapore: Academy Publishing Basu, N., Mishra, D. (2015, January 13). India suffers from an unpredictable regulatory environment: John Castellani. Retrieved from https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/india-should-develop-a-robust-enforceable-legal-framework-through-the-proposed-national-ipr-policy-john-castellani-115011100257_1.html Christina D, R. (2008). Business Cycles. Oxford University Press Diane, C. (2014). GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Princeton University Press Gary Kok Yew, C., Pey Woan, L. (2011). The Law of Torts in Singapore. Singapore: Academy Publishing, Graham, D. (2006). Economics and Economic Change. Prentice Hall. Iyengar, R. (2015, September 13). India Has Overtaken the U.S. and China to Top Spot in a Key World Foreign Investment Table. Retrieved from https://time.com/4055183/india-fdi-greenfield-top-rank-u-s-china/ Li-ann, T. (2012). A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law. Singapore:Academic Publishing Mankiw, N. G., William M. S. (2011). Macroeconomics. Canadian ed, New York: Worth Mankiw, N.G., Taylor, M.P. (2011). Economics. Andover: Cengage Learning MAS. (2018). Monetary Authority of Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulations-and-financial-stability/regulatory-and-supervisory-framework.aspx Panchal, S. (2016, August 7). India's tax, regulatory environment challenging: Foreign investors in PwC survey. Retrieved from https://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/indias-tax-regulatory-environment-challenging-foreign-investors-in-pwc-survey/44085/1 Potter, M.R. (2014). Capture Theory and the Public Interest: Balancing Competing Values to Ensure Regulatory Effectiveness. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 638-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.903266 Regine, F. (2012). Protectionism and Free Trade: A Countrys Glory or Doom? International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(3), 55-62 Sharp, D. (2014). Introduction to Regulatory Capture Theory. Retrieved from https://economics.org.au/2014/02/introduction-to-regulatory-capture-theory/ Shenoy, George T.L., Loo, Wee Ling. (2009). Principles of Singapore Business Law. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Thomas, C.G., Soule, A.B., Davis, T.B. (2010). Special Interest Capture of Regulatory Agencies, A Ten?Year Analysis of Voting Behavior on Regional Fishery Management Councils, 38(3), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00369.x World Bank. (2014). World Development Indicators (WDI). World Bank