For example, industry, investors, the press, and Congress often ask regulators to address some specific issue or matter. Instead of rethinking existing requirements, regulators change them just enough to compensate for the new development. Consequently, the next change in technology requires a new modification to the rules just adopted. In addition, regulatory agencies are usually scored by Congress or the press on the number of statements issued, rules affected, exams conducted, letters sent, or cases brought. Traditionally, the sign of an active and vibrant agency is a constant churning of activity.
Many small steps count for far more than one giant step.
Sound-bite accountability also exerts a bias toward command and control, incremental regulation. Consequently, regulators opt for specific and detailed rules that constrain behavior and channel activities to what is known and safe. Moreover, as they have always done, regulators tend to look for standards they can efficiently inspect for and enforce - just as those who are regulated demand specific and detailed guidance. The search for certainty, both by those who have to enforce the law and by those who have to abide by it, encourages detailed regulation, not pronouncements of fundamental concepts that allow markets to develop on their own. Finally, there are vested interests.