Regulatory failure caused by overlapping regulations is ubiquitous, with examples in all jurisdictions across a range of disciplines. Overlapping regulation can be problematic. It obscures policy objectives and hinders the development of effective and clear regulation. In addition, regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. Recognizing that regulatory overlap exists and is a problem provides the context to this program of research. Our research project was an exploration using a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) method to better understand the way regulatory failure, caused by overlapping regulations, has featured in academic literature. The SQLR method was chosen as it employs a systematic process to consolidate a sample of literature, and quantitative measures to draw connections between different academic sources. Ultimately, our research concluded that the literature does not provide clear prescriptive principles for reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap. This begs a question as to whether more research is needed in this area, or alternatively whether the complexities raised by regulatory overlap are not reducible to general principles.

Cross-border data flow is essential to contemporary international trade. However, transitioning from paper to digital in international trade has benefits and concerns. Concerns have led to an upsurge in data regulation as nations and regions impose restrictions on data flows and storage. This paper argues that, with increasing concerns about data sovereignty, the reconciliation of differing positions will be necessary to ensure that the benefits of digitization can be realized equally. At present, the objective of “data free flow with trust” is aspirational at best, with emerging trade barriers that unfairly threaten opportunities for small to medium enterprises and development within the Global South. This paper supports new knowledge and demonstrates that discriminatory regulation of data flow and disproportionately prioritizing national interests will be a trade barrier that impacts private entities and consumers in all nations. To avoid unintended externalities, cooperation is needed at a global level.

The regulation of environmental impacts from agriculture can take place at various scales. In some nations, with federal systems of government, the multiscale nature of regulatory interventions can be confusing for farmers, not to mention costly and time-consuming to navigate. Regulatory overlap contributes to inefficiency and wastage in governance efforts, reduced trust in government action and can preclude positive environmental outcomes across the landscape. In this article, we explore how Australia’s national-level law has been applied to agricultural land use. We canvas the concepts of regulatory complexity and ambiguity, and argue for a more integrated and flexible policy mix that rewards positive behaviour and stewardship of natural capital. This model would provide financial and other personal gains for those who can demonstrate objectives are being met. Further empirical research on fine-tuning that policy mix, again across scale, is warranted.

Many parts of the world rely on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus to improve farming production and increase yields. There are significant food security as well as socio-economic issues at stake. However, it is also clear that fertilizer loads are particularly damaging to aquatic environments, including lakes, rivers, coral reefs, and wetlands. This article explores governance approaches to fertilizer practices that impact on aquatic environments (eutrophication) by examining a case study of the Great Barrier Reef. Governance involves any and all forms of state and non-state control over a given set of issues. It can include, but is not limited to, rule-based approaches like regulation, although it can also involve market-driven measures like nutrient trading schemes, government grants and other financial incentives. So, which approach to governance works best to combat this particular policy question? What other insights into the design of effective regulation and governance can be gathered? In this article, the authors make three broad arguments for change: firstly, it is crucial that regulation features within government strategies; secondly, there must be a rigorous systematic evaluation of the strategies to ensure that the desired behavioural change is achieved along with the desired outcomes; thirdly, and most importantly, the strategies and the evaluation methods must be appropriate for the culture of the industry they are designed to regulate.