Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Deregulation of conveyancing markets in England and Wales

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Steven, Frank H., Love, James H. and Paterson, Alan A. (1994) Deregulation of conveyancing markets in England and Wales. Fiscal Studies, Volume 15 (Number 4). pp. 102-118. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.1994.tb00212.x ISSN 0143-5671.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.1994.tb00212...

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

There has been much concern in recent years with whether the 'Privilege' of self- regulation accorded to the professions works for or against the public interest (Federal Trade Commission, 1984; Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1970, 1976a and 1976b; Department of Trade and Industry, 1989; Courts and Legal Services Act, 1990). Ogus (1993) argues that 'Self-regulation has had a bad press' and that 'most of this criticism is well-founded in relation to some forms of self- regulation'. Economists have been, traditionally, highly critical of many aspects of professional self-regulation. More recently, there has been a greater awareness of the informational asymmetry inherent in professional markets which demands some protection for the (infrequent) consumer of personal professional services (see, for example, Dingwall and Fenn (1987)). Commentators have identified three principal instruments of such selfregulators which work against the public interest: (1) restrictions on entry; (2) restrictions on fee competition; and (3) restrictions on advertising and other means of promoting a competitive process within the profession.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics
Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School > Strategy & International Business
Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Journal or Publication Title: Fiscal Studies
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc
ISSN: 0143-5671
Official Date: 4 November 1994
Dates:
DateEvent
4 November 1994Published
7 March 2005Available
Volume: Volume 15
Number: Number 4
Page Range: pp. 102-118
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5890.1994.tb00212.x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us