Triangular Control Transactions

Triangular Control Transactions

In the literal sense of self-regulation (self-regulation) – it is sanctioned by the individual themselves to certain limitations, without any external compulsion to do so. In economic practice, this concept is embedded in a slightly different meaning. SROs in the construction are understood as the regulation of building markets and spheres of economic agents themselves, without government interference. If we consider the sro in the building in the coordinates of 'free market' – 'State regulation', in contrast to the free market self-regulation involves the establishment of certain formal 'rules' for the participants of a particular market segment, including sanctions for violation of these rules, mechanisms for resolving conflicts between market participants, which to some extent limit the freedom of economic agents. On the other hand, as the setting of 'rules', and resolution Conflict is carried by the participants of the market without direct government intervention. To this end, they created a special organizational structures – the sro, who is delegated certain powers and rights of economic agents. In other words, forming a tripartite governance structure of transactions, but a third party not acting on behalf of the state judicial arbitration system and industry regulatory agencies, and special organizations created and controlled by the market participants. Like other forms of tripartite management transactions, self-regulation is effective in cases where there is the use of or idiosyncratic resources in the irregular nature of the interaction of counterparties (in terms of neoclassical contracting). If you have additional questions, you may want to visit Ben Silbermann.

sro rules in the construction does not contradict the formal rules, created by the state, and are legitimate. Certainly, in the real economy, there may be an agreement of economic agents, the actual impact on their behavior in the market and suggesting specific sanctions for violation, but contrary to the formal rules. A typical example of such arrangements – informal cartels. This kind of illegitimate agreements and associations under our definition of cpo do not fall. Effect the governing bodies ability to influence the governing bodies of cpo in the construction of its members more than the ability to influence the appointment of officials governing bodies of state authority so as option 1 every 4 years to choose the deputies, the governor, the president.

If dissatisfaction with the work of civil police or the court can not lead to a change in leadership of Ministry of Internal Affairs or the judiciary, the deficiencies of organs and sro officials can lead to rapid changes of a personal composition of such bodies and officials at the annual meetings. It seems that the efforts of members of the SROs in the construction of useful guide to improvement of their associations, alliances and partnerships, as already it is clear that the institution of self is recognized by society, that gives us hope – he will not leave the scene for the foreseeable future. This is confirmed by experience of SROs in the uk, France, usa and other countries where, as a rule, there are one or two of the main organization. Their activities are concentrated primarily in the construction industry. The large number of SROs in construction is unlikely to be justified because it leads to the fact that the same professional participants, engaging in various SROs, acting in the same market will have to perform various requirements, which introduces inconsistency in the regulation of one type of activity.

Comments are closed.