Opening up (EU) rules: Three views of the cathedral

The use of regulation in a wide variety of sectors and the political debates – sometimes called "wars" – on red tape, legal complexity and, more generally, bureaucratic growth reverberate in a strong social scientific interest in how to measure regulation. Nowhere is this more salient than in the EU, which epitomizes the regulatory state. Clearly, the very concept of regulation is complex, a true social scientific cathedral – one that seems to change depending on the analytical light we shed on it, or the observer’s perspective. We are interested in metrics that, by starting from measurement, make sense for social scientific work; are transparent on their normative assumptions and biases; and allow for cumulative research, because they stem directly from – or at least converse with – theory. These considerations lead us to focus on three frameworks: the institutional analysis and development framework, the concept of legalization, and the density-intensity two-dimensional view of regulation. We first introduce the three frameworks, and then compare them across multiple criteria. Thereafter, we perform a simple empirical test on how the three views of the cathedral approach measurement of the same regulatory domain (EU financial regulation). We conclude with suggestions about how and when to use one or the other framework, or combining them together. Our analysis contributes to the literature on the growth of policies and specifically rules and on regulatory indicators, providing an explicit comparison and assessment of three important frameworks. We also contribute to discussions about how to complement the existing data on regulation provided by international organizations with approaches to regulatory measurement that are developed within the social sciences.