Red tape (or, to use a more modern term, "compliance").

OK, the language is already problematic.

"Best" is hopefully intended to mean "most effective", where effective is defined in deliberately broad terms to satisfy all stakeholders.

Red Tape is itself a pejorative term, suggestive of bureaucratic inefficiency and unnecessary overheads. And 'LightTouch' vs 'Firm Grip' is a response to the Red Tape school of thinking, referring not to the effectiveness of the regulation, but to the onerousness or otherwise of the mechanisms. All in all there's a lot wrapped up in the question.

It might seem pretty non-contentious to suggest that we all want effective light-touch regulation, but any form of regulation is a compromise and means that the result is likely to be found sub-optimal by one or other group ofstakeholders.

If the group that is unhappy is the regulated entity, the unspoken fear is that they will pick up their ball and go and play somewhere else; the only remedy available to the regulator is concerted international action (and, for all the noises about dealing with tax havens, don't hold your breath).

Thus, in the absence of inclusively co-ordinated international action what can we do?

How about demanding higher ethical standards from business? Another no-brainer, surely nobody would argue against it?.

Taking a lead from the professions, can we not demand a licence to operate, revocable if the requisite standards are in anyway unmet; Unethical behaviour would result in sanctions.

The actual regulation could thus be light-touch, it's just the sanctions that could be onerous (and thus the compliance' overhead' could actually be quite modest).

"if the regime is less than attractive, then tax avoiders will merely relocate Head Office to somewhere more favourable"

Maybe the 'eyebrow of the governor of the Bank of England' would have been more effective than the FSA in avoiding the current economic woes?

Access to market is something of a shibboleth. Tax avoidance is inevitably constrained by the above-mentioned fear: "if the regime is less than attractive, then the putative culprit will merely relocate Head Office to somewhere more favourable" argument.

So where the business has its HQ registered, production facilities located or CEO domiciled is increasingly not the key question. Where it attempts to sell its products & services is a territory less easily vacated and maybe we should insist on certain standards before granting access?

Protectionism, I hear you say. Maybe, but the very concept of a Free Trade Area has historically been about eliminating barriers within a zone whilst at the same time maintaining barriers around it. Most have a history of asserting certain conditions for anyone given access to the contained market - a percentage of local content, or whatever. Untrammeled globalism could be argued to be the elimination of not just the inner barriers but also the outer barriers. The question is whether this necessarily takes the 'conditions' with it.

Or am I just being hopelessly naïve?

Find out more

Get to grips with business questions - explore The Open University Business School

About the author

David Mayle spent many happy years in high-tech new product development before becoming a management academic at the Open University Business School. He chairs an MBA elective in Creative Management and currently heads the Centre for Innovation, Knowledge and Enterprise.

Subscribe to David Mayle's posts

 

Blogging about

Money Programme

Get the facts behind the big business and finance stories from around the world – and down your street, in The Money Programme.

Like Pete Waterman, I remember Airfix with a great deal of affection. My first, perhaps inevitably, was the Spitfire. 1:72-scale, duck egg blue, polystyrene parts that really did ‘almost fall together’, but in my case with a ‘crazed’ cockpit-canopy where I’d been a over-exuberant with the adhesive. Nevertheless, I was hooked; I worked my way through the range of military aircraft, with Dad on hand to help with the difficult (i.e. movable) bits. Parents are obviously a formative influence, and in the 1950s many would have at some time been involved making/flying/maintaining such aircraft and many more would have been working in engineering-based industries. Clearly, a toy that you could assemble yourself into something iconic chimed with the zeitgeist…

Researching this piece, I was amazed to discover that the original product concept was not for a kit of parts but for a completed model – in the very first instance, of a Ferguson tractor. But although the injection-moulded parts were comparatively cheap, assembly added significantly to the costs, and so someone, somewhere, came up with what is now arguably the defining characteristic of an Airfix product – self-assembly from a kit of parts. Throughout the ’60s and ’70s the range grew, but the essential product remained unchanged. In the 1980s the company’s fortunes went into serious decline; if they are to be successfully revived then the market must be carefully researched. What is the product? Who are the customers?

So, is it a kit, a model or a toy? Does the enjoyment arise from making it, admiring the finished product, playing with it, or some combination of all three? Traditionally the attraction was largely based upon attention to detail (at the time, vastly superior to the competition), arguing towards the first two. The finished product was never noticeably robust, so the ‘playing’ bit inevitably involved suspending it from the ceiling with bits of cotton and required lots of imagination. And who’s going to buy it? There is certainly plenty of nostalgic goodwill out there, but by its nature that can’t last forever. A new generation of enthusiasts must be cultivated by appealing to something they find relevant. The Doctor Who link may be a risk – the programme is noticeably less hardware-oriented than say Star Wars, hence the focus in the programme on figures rather than machines, so does that change the nature of the beast? Is this the way to bring a new generation on board?

Airfix originally prospered at a time when World War II was recent memory and Britain still considered itself an engineering power. Times are now very different and engineering design and manufacture represent a steadily decreasing contribution to the domestic economy. Not only are today’s products manufactured in places like China, they are increasingly designed there too. Is the whole notion of an Airfix kit just too engineering-led for Britain in the 21^st century?

Looking back, Airfix was certainly a factor in my subsequent career direction. How much do our toys influence our attitudes, and what then might be the economic consequences of the current vogue for computer games? Perhaps more importantly, will it help us to create wealth when everything we buy is Made in China?

Find out more

• Join the discussion - do you think Airfix kits will sell in modern Britain?
• Airfix flies again - watch extended interviews from the programme
• Marketing in a complex world
• Creativity, innovation and change 
• Managing innovation - how do companies get the creative juices flowing? What drives innovation and what factors stop it in its tracks?
• The youth market - companies like Reebok spend a lot of time and effort targeting young people. Learn about the tactics they use. 
• English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850-1980 by Martin Wiener
• Engineering the difference - James Dyson gives the Richard Dimbleby Lecture
• Outsourcing innovation
• Marketing by David Mercer, published by Blackwell

About the author

David Mayle spent many happy years in high-tech new product development before becoming a management academic at the Open University Business School. He chairs an MBA elective in Creative Management and currently heads the Centre for Innovation, Knowledge and Enterprise.

Subscribe to David Mayle's posts