The theory of regulatory capture has long been used to make the case for deregulation by questioning the legitimacy of government’s regulatory function. How do government officials, who are tasked with regulating, embrace deregulation? This article explores that question in the context of Boston’s debate over regulating transportation network companies (TNCs). Analyzing media coverage, I identify two types of frames that emerged as stakeholders attempted to influence TNC regulation: issue frames aimed to shape the interpretation of the ride-for-hire industry, while meta-frames shifted the focus of debate from TNCs to regulation itself. Specifically, a meta-frame invoking the theory of regulatory capture became central. Supplementing media coverage with in-depth interviews, I show that government officials did not refute the capture frame but rather used this frame to draw a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate regulation. I propose that these distinctions are central to legitimizing a deregulatory agenda, as officials condemn specific types of regulation in order to shore up the broader category of regulation. The case sheds light on how the idea of government as an impediment to innovation is embraced by government officials themselves, paving the way for new market configurations.

中文翻译：

---

框架中断：监管捕获框架如何使波士顿打车行业放松管制合法化

长期以来，监管捕获理论一直被用来通过质疑政府监管职能的合法性来为放松监管提供理由。负责监管的政府官员如何接受放松管制？本文在波士顿关于监管运输网络公司 (TNC) 的辩论中探讨了这个问题。通过分析媒体报道，我确定了利益相关者试图影响跨国公司监管的两种框架：旨在塑造对打车行业的解释的问题框架，而元框架将辩论的焦点从跨国公司转移到监管本身. 具体来说，调用监管捕获理论的元框架成为核心。通过深度采访补充媒体报道，我表明政府官员并没有反驳捕获框架，而是使用这个框架来区分合法和非法监管。我建议，这些区别对于解除管制议程的合法化至关重要，因为官员们谴责特定类型的管制以支持更广泛的管制类别。该案例揭示了政府官员如何接受政府作为创新障碍的想法，为新的市场配置铺平道路。