We trace the pragmatic turn in regulatory governance from the level of the state and civil society to the coalface of the regulated organization. Since the 1980s, an array of new regulatory models has emerged. These models, while distinct, are unified in two related tendencies. First, they support the devolution of responsibility for standard setting, program design, and enforcement to the regulated organization. This delegation of governance to the organization itself has catalyzed the creation of accountability infrastructures within organizations, a network of offices, roles, programs, and procedures dedicated to aligning the organization's operations with external standards, codes of conduct, ethical and normative expectations, and regulations. Second, the diverse regulatory models depend, often implicitly, on organizational accountability infrastructures that incorporate the tenets of pragmatist philosophy: inquiry through narration, adaptation to context, and problem-solving through experimentation. Reviewing the empirical literature on organizational compliance, we find ample evidence of inquiry through narration at the organizational coalface. However, we find limited evidence of narrating plurality in the organization and narrating experimentation as problem-solving, as these activities create tensions with internal and external parties who expect singular, stable representations of governance. These tensions reveal an important incongruity between pragmatic governance across organizations and pragmatic governance within organizations. We contribute to the regulatory governance literature by documenting this important shift in the locus of governance to the organizational coalface and by charting a new research agenda. We argue that examinations of regulatory governance should be retraced in three ways. First, attention should shift to the organizational coalface, recognizing and analyzing accountability infrastructures as the central contemporary mechanism of governance. Second, the long-standing focus in regulatory studies on why parties comply should shift to understanding how regulated parties manage themselves to achieve compliance. Third, analyses of compliance should examine the tensions in narrating adaptation and experimentation, and the implications of such tensions for the achievement of prosocial outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

问责制基础设施：组织内部的务实合规性

我们追溯监管治理从国家和公民社会层面到受监管组织的层面的务实转变。自 1980 年代以来，出现了一系列新的监管模式。这些模型虽然不同，但在两个相关的趋势中是统一的。首先，他们支持将标准制定、程序设计和执行的责任下放给受监管的组织。这种对组织本身的治理授权促进了问责制基础设施的创建在组织内部，由办公室、角色、计划和程序组成的网络，致力于使组织的运营与外部标准、行为准则、道德和规范期望以及法规保持一致。其次，不同的监管模式通常隐含地依赖于包含实用主义哲学信条的组织问责制基础设施：通过叙述进行探究、适应环境以及通过实验解决问题。回顾有关组织合规性的实证文献，我们发现了大量通过组织层面的叙述进行探究的证据。然而，我们发现在组织中叙述多元化并将实验叙述为解决问题的证据有限，因为这些活动与期望单一的内部和外部各方产生紧张关系，稳定的治理表征。这些紧张关系揭示了跨组织的务实治理与组织内的务实治理之间存在重要的不协调。我们通过记录治理地点向组织层面的重要转变并制定新的研究议程，为监管治理文献做出贡献。我们认为应该从三个方面追溯对监管治理的审查。首先，注意力应该转移到组织层面，承认和分析问责基础设施作为现代治理的核心机制。第二，监管研究的长期关注点 这些紧张关系揭示了跨组织的务实治理与组织内的务实治理之间存在重要的不协调。我们通过记录治理地点向组织层面的重要转变并制定新的研究议程，为监管治理文献做出贡献。我们认为应该从三个方面追溯对监管治理的审查。首先，注意力应该转移到组织层面，承认和分析问责基础设施作为现代治理的核心机制。第二，监管研究的长期关注点 这些紧张关系揭示了跨组织的务实治理与组织内的务实治理之间存在重要的不协调。我们通过记录治理地点向组织层面的重要转变并制定新的研究议程，为监管治理文献做出贡献。我们认为应该从三个方面追溯对监管治理的审查。首先，注意力应该转移到组织层面，承认和分析问责基础设施作为现代治理的核心机制。第二，监管研究的长期关注点 我们认为应该从三个方面追溯对监管治理的审查。首先，注意力应该转移到组织层面，承认和分析问责基础设施作为现代治理的核心机制。第二，监管研究的长期关注点 我们认为应该从三个方面追溯对监管治理的审查。首先，注意力应该转移到组织层面，承认和分析问责基础设施作为现代治理的核心机制。第二，监管研究的长期关注点各方遵守的原因应转变为了解受监管方如何管理自己以实现合规。第三，依从性分析应该检查叙述适应和实验中的张力，以及这种张力对实现亲社会结果的影响。