Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The United States-Japan Gateway Awards Case of 1990: International Competition and Regulatory Theory

Donald Haider
Public Administration Review
Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1996), pp. 9-20
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
DOI: 10.2307/3110049
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110049
Page Count: 12
  • Download ($25.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
The United States-Japan Gateway Awards Case of 1990: International Competition and Regulatory Theory
Preview not available

Abstract

Competitive forces are producing changes in regulatory decision making in once highly regulated domestic industries. Where such changes have occurred, regulatory theory needs to reflect these new dynamics. To support this hypothesis, the author draws upon a major U.S. Department of Transportation airline awards case where regulatory officials had to decide which combination of new and expanded U.S. carrier service to Japan would provide "the greatest public benefit over time." The evidence suggests that the department's decision turned on a broader rather than narrower view of competition. That is, greater public benefits were to be achieved by strengthening U.S. carrier competition against foreign carriers thereby providing more competition among U.S. carriers. In making this decision, regulators also had to consider "civic support" for specific carrier awards from cities, states, and consumer stakeholders who would benefit from new and expanded service. Thus, the political competition for six awards (three of which were the Tokyo prize) pitted nine U.S. carriers and dozens of cities, states, and airport authorities against one another in one of the most celebrated route award cases in departmental memory. In an earlier period of airline regulation, the author contends that the issues and outcomes would likely have been different. However, a changed competitive arena has altered regulatory decisions. As such, the case seeks to break new ground in viewing regulatory politics.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
9
    9
  • Thumbnail: Page 
10
    10
  • Thumbnail: Page 
11
    11
  • Thumbnail: Page 
12
    12
  • Thumbnail: Page 
13
    13
  • Thumbnail: Page 
14
    14
  • Thumbnail: Page 
15
    15
  • Thumbnail: Page 
16
    16
  • Thumbnail: Page 
17
    17
  • Thumbnail: Page 
18
    18
  • Thumbnail: Page 
19
    19
  • Thumbnail: Page 
20
    20