Slayton and Treblicock (1978)), the formal analysis of the economics of the self-regulating profession has received little attention from theorists. If a profession is self-regulating, in the sense that its current members, being the sole suppliers of a certain type of service, are free to determine, in one way or another, whether or not to admit a potential recruit, then it might seem prima facie that such a profession could simply be regarded as a monopolistic seller of the service in question, so that the effects of self-regulation would appear to involve an unambiguous welfare loss. The whole rationale for self-regulation, however, rests on the notion that it provides a vehicle through which the quality of the service may be maintained in markets where the consumer cannot readily measure this quality himself. It is the analysis of the interplay of these two elements, the enhanced price of such services associated with the monopolistic power of the profession, and the improved quality of the service which may accompany a reduction in supply, which forms the focus of the present paper. It is tempting to begin the analysis of such a profession by first positing some particular

This paper is concerned with the problem of price regulation when demand is uncertain. Uncertainty gives rise to substantial difficulties in determining both the return a firm's owners should be provided and a set of prices capable of producing that return. We argue that conventional approaches to price regulation are incapable of attaining the economically desirable objectives of efficiency and an equitable return to investors. The deficiencies in current practices are attributable to the separation of the risk measurement‐return determination and price setting activities in the conventional approach. We present a model of the regulated firm that synthesizes contemporary financial market theory and the theory of the firm under uncertainty. 1 In our approach, the income stream produced by the firm is valued ex ante in the financial market according to investors' perceptions and preferences over riskreturn characteristics. We portray the firm as producing risk and return by choosing among available production technologies to maximize its market value, given the prices set by regulators. Within this framework, it is shown that regulators can choose the lowest prices consistent with an equitable return to investors. We also show that prices so chosen induce the choice of the optimal technology by the firm

Reviews the book "Regulation and the Accounting Profession," edited by John W. Buckley and J. Fred Weston

Reviews the book "Government Regulation of Accounting and Information," edited by A. Rashad Abdel-Khalik

Reviews the book "Digest of State Accountancy Laws and State Board Regulations: 1980

A time-series regression model of the US manufacturing sector is developed to estimate the direct and indirect relationships of public regulations and productivity for the 1973 to 1977 period. Preliminary results show that 12 to 21% of the productivity slowdown is blamed on regulation. Other contributing factors are a reduced non-labor to labor input (15%), average cyclical impact (0 to 15%), and a combination of changes in labor composition, expenses for research and development, and shifts in sectoral output. The study focuses on measured productivity, and the results have little implication to true productivity growth. 14 references, 24 tables. (DCK

Reviews the book "The SEC and Corporate Disclosure: Regulation in Search of a Purpose," by Homer Kripke

There are two possible outcomes of transport regulation: (1) maintaining a carrier cartel and (2) imposing equalizing discrimination against advantaged and in favor of disadvantaged shippers. Both functions have required a complex rate structure to enforce the respective forms of price discrimination. Using a sample of freight bills from motor carriers and railroads, this paper demonstrates that the principal result of motor carrier regulation has been to maintain a cartel of truckers, while railroad regulation has thwarted the wishes of the railroad cartel by imposing equalizing discrimination on weak and strong shippers. Motor carrier rates respond in an economically rational manner to costs and shipper bargaining power; rail rates are either unresponsive or perversely responsive to the same factors. Deregulation should have divergent effects in the two industries

There are two possible outcomes of transport regulation: (1) maintaining a carrier cartel and (2) imposing equalizing discrimination against advantaged and in favor of disadvantaged shippers. Both functions have required a complex rate structure to enforce the respective forms of price discrimination. Using a sample of freight bills from motor carriers and railroads, this paper demonstrates that the principal result of motor carrier regulation has been to maintain a cartel of truckers, while railroad regulation has thwarted the wishes of the railroad cartel by imposing equalizing discrimination on weak and strong shippers. Motor carrier rates respond in an economically rational manner to costs and shipper bargaining power; rail rates are either unresponsive or perversely responsive to the same factors. Deregulation should have divergent effects in the two industries

R. S. Bower, Impact of Regulation on Economic Behavior: Discussion, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 36, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Thirty Ninth Annual Meeting American Finance Association, Denver, September 5-7, 1980 (May, 1981), pp. 397-399