Abstract
This dissertation critically examines whether stringent legislation effectively reduces disruptive behaviours or merely displaces them into riskier, less visible forms. Drawing upon a systematic literature synthesis encompassing over 50 peer-reviewed studies across financial regulation, drug policy, criminal justice, education, and innovation systems, this work interrogates the assumption that tougher laws inherently produce desired outcomes. The methodology employed a comprehensive search strategy across major academic databases, identifying 1,064 papers, with 50 meeting inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. Key findings reveal a consistent pattern across domains: stringent legal frameworks frequently precipitate adaptation mechanisms, including substitution effects, risk migration, and organisational restructuring among targeted actors. Anti-money-laundering regulations displaced illicit activities domestically; drug recriminalisation pushed consumption into dangerous, hidden environments; and criminal networks demonstrated increased resilience following enforcement pressure. The evidence challenges simplistic deterrence models, highlighting that regulatory stringency operates within complex adaptive systems where unintended consequences are common. These conclusions carry significant implications for policymakers, suggesting that adaptive, context-sensitive regulatory frameworks may prove more effective than uniformly punitive approaches in achieving genuine harm reduction without generating counterproductive displacement effects.
Introduction
The relationship between legal stringency and behavioural change represents one of the most contested areas in regulatory scholarship. Policymakers frequently invoke tougher laws as solutions to persistent social problems, operating under the assumption that increased penalties and stricter enforcement will deter undesirable behaviours. However, this deterrence-based logic, whilst intuitively appealing, encounters significant challenges when subjected to empirical scrutiny across diverse regulatory domains.
The fundamental question of whether stringent legislation reduces disruption or displaces it into riskier forms carries profound implications for legal theory, public policy, and societal wellbeing. If tougher laws merely redirect problematic behaviours rather than eliminating them, then entire regulatory frameworks may require reconceptualisation. Moreover, if displacement produces more dangerous outcomes than the original behaviours targeted, stricter laws could paradoxically increase aggregate harm whilst appearing superficially successful.
This inquiry intersects with several established theoretical traditions. Classical deterrence theory, originating with Beccaria (1764) and Bentham (1789), posits that rational actors weigh potential costs against benefits when deciding whether to engage in prohibited behaviours. Under this framework, increasing penalties should reduce offending by shifting the cost-benefit calculation. However, contemporary criminological research increasingly recognises limitations in rational choice assumptions, particularly when applied to behaviours driven by addiction, economic necessity, or organisational dynamics (Wikström, 2006).
The concept of displacement has received substantial attention within criminology, particularly regarding spatial displacement of crime following targeted enforcement (Weisburd et al., 2006). However, the broader phenomenon of risk displacement—whereby regulatory pressure transforms rather than eliminates problematic behaviours—has received less systematic treatment. This dissertation addresses this gap by synthesising evidence across multiple domains where tougher laws have been implemented.
The academic significance of this investigation extends beyond theoretical refinement. Understanding regulatory displacement mechanisms has direct practical implications for legislative design, enforcement strategies, and harm reduction approaches. If certain conditions predictably generate displacement rather than reduction, identifying these conditions could inform more effective regulatory interventions.
Contemporary examples underscore the urgency of this inquiry. Anti-money-laundering frameworks have expanded dramatically following international pressure, yet illicit financial flows continue to adapt and evolve (Colella, Maskus and Peri, 2025). Drug policies oscillate between prohibition and decriminalisation, with recent recriminalisation in British Columbia providing natural experimental conditions for evaluating displacement effects (Ali et al., 2025). Criminal organisations demonstrate remarkable adaptive capacity, frequently emerging stronger following law enforcement disruption efforts (Van Elteren, Vasconcelos and Lees, 2024). Educational institutions implementing zero-tolerance discipline policies have experienced counterintuitive increases in classroom disruption (Way, 2011). These diverse examples suggest common underlying mechanisms worthy of systematic examination.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate whether tougher laws effectively reduce disruptive behaviours or predominantly displace them into riskier, less visible forms.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the investigation:
1. To synthesise empirical evidence regarding displacement effects across diverse regulatory domains, including financial crime, drug policy, criminal justice, education, and innovation systems.
2. To identify common mechanisms through which stringent legal frameworks precipitate adaptation and displacement behaviours among targeted actors.
3. To evaluate the quality and consistency of evidence supporting displacement hypotheses across different sectors and methodological approaches.
4. To assess the conditions under which regulatory stringency produces displacement versus genuine reduction in targeted behaviours.
5. To examine the implications of displacement findings for regulatory design and harm reduction policy.
6. To identify gaps in existing research and propose directions for future investigation into regulatory displacement phenomena.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology, integrating findings from peer-reviewed research across multiple academic disciplines. The methodological approach reflects the cross-sectoral nature of the research question, which necessitates drawing upon scholarship in criminology, economics, public policy, education, and innovation studies.
The literature search strategy encompassed comprehensive searches across major academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and specialist repositories. The search process involved 21 targeted queries organised into eight thematic clusters: regulatory displacement, risk migration, unintended consequences of legislation, deterrence theory foundations, criminal network adaptation, innovation and regulation, educational discipline effects, and harm reduction frameworks.
The search strategy initially identified 1,064 potentially relevant papers. Following title and abstract screening, 915 papers underwent detailed eligibility assessment. Of these, 564 papers met basic relevance criteria, with the 50 most pertinent papers selected for detailed analysis based on methodological rigour, direct relevance to displacement phenomena, and contribution to theoretical understanding.
Inclusion criteria required papers to: (a) address relationships between legal stringency and behavioural outcomes; (b) present original empirical findings or substantive theoretical analysis; (c) appear in peer-reviewed publications or equivalent scholarly outlets; and (d) be published in English. Exclusion criteria eliminated opinion pieces without empirical foundation, papers addressing unrelated regulatory contexts, and studies with significant methodological limitations that precluded meaningful interpretation.
The synthesis process involved extracting key findings regarding displacement effects, categorising evidence by domain and mechanism, and assessing consistency across studies employing different methodological approaches. Studies utilising natural experiments, difference-in-differences designs, and rigorous qualitative methods received particular weight in evidence synthesis.
Quality assessment considered methodological approaches, sample sizes, potential confounding factors, and replication across studies. Evidence strength ratings were assigned to major claims based on the number of supporting studies, methodological diversity, and consistency of findings.
This methodology presents certain limitations requiring acknowledgement. As a literature synthesis rather than primary empirical investigation, findings depend upon the quality and comprehensiveness of included studies. Publication bias may affect the available evidence base, potentially under-representing null findings or failed replications. Additionally, cross-domain synthesis necessarily involves drawing parallels between contexts with important differences, requiring careful interpretation of generalisability.
Literature review
### Theoretical foundations of deterrence and displacement
The deterrence paradigm underpinning most punitive legislation rests upon assumptions regarding rational calculation by potential offenders. Classical formulations suggest that certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment collectively influence deterrent effectiveness (Nagin, 2013). However, extensive criminological research has documented substantial limitations in deterrence theory’s predictive power across various offending contexts.
Contemporary scholarship increasingly recognises that behavioural responses to legal sanctions involve complex adaptive processes rather than simple cost-benefit calculations. Situational action theory proposes that moral beliefs and self-control mediate relationships between perceived sanctions and behaviour, suggesting deterrence operates differentially across populations (Wikström, 2006). These theoretical refinements help explain why uniform increases in legal stringency produce heterogeneous outcomes across contexts.
The displacement hypothesis posits that enforcement pressure redirects rather than eliminates prohibited behaviours. Originally developed within spatial crime analysis, displacement concepts have expanded to encompass temporal, tactical, target, and offence-type displacement (Guerette and Bowers, 2009). This taxonomy proves useful for understanding diverse manifestations of adaptation to tougher laws.
### Financial regulation and money laundering displacement
Recent empirical work on anti-money-laundering regulation provides compelling evidence for displacement effects. Colella, Maskus and Peri (2025) examined consequences of stricter regulations in offshore financial centres, finding that enhanced compliance requirements in traditional havens precipitated increased domestic laundering activities within the United States. Particularly concerning was the concentration of displaced activity in high-risk sectors and through more opaque transaction mechanisms, potentially increasing detection difficulty whilst maintaining illicit financial flows.
This displacement pattern reflects rational adaptation by money launderers facing increased costs in traditional venues. Rather than abandoning illicit activities, actors relocated operations to jurisdictions with relatively weaker oversight or exploited regulatory arbitrage opportunities. The finding that displaced laundering often employed more sophisticated concealment techniques suggests that regulatory pressure may inadvertently professionalise criminal financial activity.
Financial regulation effects on legitimate innovation present a more nuanced picture. Yin et al. (2025) examined how strong financial regulation and shadow banking affect enterprise innovation inputs, finding complex interactions between regulatory stringency and innovative capacity. Similarly, Cerqueiro et al. (2016) documented relationships between debtor rights and innovation, suggesting that certain protective legal frameworks can facilitate rather than impede technological advancement.
### Drug policy and harm displacement
Drug policy provides particularly compelling evidence for displacement into riskier forms. Recent experience in British Columbia offers valuable natural experimental data following oscillation between decriminalisation and recriminalisation. Ali et al. (2025) documented how recriminalisation of drug possession pushed consumption into more dangerous, hidden environments. This spatial displacement was accompanied by disruption of established supply networks, which had paradoxically provided users with some predictability regarding substance composition.
The harm amplification mechanisms observed extended beyond spatial relocation. Recriminalisation increased the potency and unpredictability of drug supply as traditional dealers were replaced by less established and more dangerous sources. Overdose risks escalated as users consumed substances of unknown strength in isolated settings without access to harm reduction interventions. These findings demonstrate how ostensibly protective legislation can generate outcomes opposite to stated intentions.
Ruane (2025) extended this analysis to festival contexts, documenting how punitive policing incentivised riskier drug use behaviours. Fear of detection led to hurried consumption, anonymous purchasing from unknown suppliers, and active avoidance of harm reduction services that might have detected substances of concerning composition. The research revealed that users adopted behaviours explicitly understood as risky specifically because enforcement pressure foreclosed safer alternatives.
These findings align with broader harm reduction scholarship emphasising that criminalisation frequently increases rather than decreases drug-related harms (Rhodes, 2009). The mechanisms identified—displacement to hidden locations, disruption of predictable supply, increased potency variability, and avoidance of health services—appear to operate consistently across diverse enforcement contexts.
### Criminal network adaptation and resilience
Research on criminal organisations reveals sophisticated adaptive responses to law enforcement pressure. Van Elteren, Vasconcelos and Lees (2024) modelled criminal network dynamics following disruption interventions, finding that organisations frequently exhibit hysteresis, resilience, and robustness through balancing security and efficiency concerns. Counter-intuitively, disruption attempts sometimes strengthened targeted networks by eliminating less competent members and triggering organisational restructuring that enhanced operational security.
Duijn, Kashirin and Sloot (2014) reached similar conclusions through analysis of intelligence data on criminal networks. Their examination of network structures before and after law enforcement interventions demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of standard disruption strategies. Networks typically reorganised following attacks, compartmentalising functions and reducing centrality of key nodes to enhance survival capacity. This adaptive response rendered subsequent disruption attempts more difficult.
The timing of intervention emerged as a critical variable in determining effectiveness. Networks in early organisational stages proved more vulnerable to disruption than established organisations with developed redundancy mechanisms. However, law enforcement typically targets networks only after they become sufficiently visible to attract attention, by which point adaptive capacity is well developed.
### Educational discipline and classroom disruption
The educational context provides evidence that stricter rules can paradoxically increase the behaviours they seek to eliminate. Way (2011) conducted large-scale analysis of relationships between school discipline policies and classroom disruption. Contrary to deterrence theory predictions, schools implementing more severe discipline policies and greater numbers of strict rules experienced higher levels of disruptive student behaviour.
This counterintuitive finding suggests that punitive approaches may undermine legitimate authority, provoke defiance, or create adversarial relationships between students and institutions. Alternative explanations include selection effects (troubled schools implementing stricter policies) or endogeneity (disruption prompting policy responses). However, the consistency of findings across methodological approaches suggests genuine causal mechanisms linking punitiveness to disruption.
### Homelessness and spatial displacement
Anti-homeless legislation illustrates displacement dynamics within social policy. Herring, Yarbrough and Alatorre (2019) examined consequences of laws criminalising behaviours associated with homelessness across U.S. cities. Rather than reducing visible homelessness, these laws created “spatial churn” as homeless individuals circulated between jurisdictions to avoid enforcement. This displacement deepened inequalities and increased hardship without addressing underlying causes of housing insecurity.
The criminalization approach to homelessness exemplifies regulatory interventions targeting symptoms rather than causes. Legal sanctions cannot create affordable housing or address mental health and substance use issues contributing to homelessness. Displacement between jurisdictions merely redistributes visible consequences whilst imposing additional burdens on already marginalised populations.
### Regulation and innovation systems
The relationship between regulatory stringency and innovation presents more heterogeneous findings than other domains examined. Stojčić, Vujanović and Baum (2024) documented how certain regulatory frameworks in emerging innovation systems led to abandonment of radical innovation in favour of incremental improvements. Restrictive environments channelled innovative effort toward less disruptive, more predictable developments that minimised regulatory complications.
Park, Wu and Funk (2024) complicated this picture by demonstrating that restrictive environments can sometimes promote destabilising new technologies by creating market conditions favouring radical solutions. This finding suggests that regulatory effects on innovation depend substantially on market structure, uncertainty levels, and the specific nature of restrictions imposed.
Blind, Petersen and Riillo (2017) emphasised context-dependence of regulatory impacts on innovation, finding that effects varied substantially by industry characteristics and regulatory design. Standards and regulations could function as market barriers or as facilitators of innovation depending on implementation approach. Acharya, Baghai and Subramanian (2009) demonstrated that certain legal protections, specifically dismissal laws reducing employment risks, could foster innovation by providing security that encouraged risk-taking.
These findings suggest that innovation displacement differs from other domains in that regulatory effects are bidirectional and highly context-dependent. Unlike drug use or money laundering, where displacement almost uniformly increases risk, innovation displacement may sometimes produce beneficial reallocation of innovative effort (Bradford, 2024).
Discussion
The evidence synthesised across domains reveals consistent patterns whilst highlighting important contextual variations in displacement mechanisms and consequences. This discussion critically analyses findings in relation to stated objectives and considers implications for regulatory theory and practice.
### Consistency and variation in displacement mechanisms
The first objective sought to synthesise evidence regarding displacement effects across domains. Findings demonstrate remarkable consistency in the fundamental pattern: tougher laws rarely eliminate targeted behaviours but instead redirect them into adapted forms. This pattern emerged across financial crime, drug policy, criminal networks, education, and social policy. However, the mechanisms and consequences of displacement varied substantially between contexts.
In financial crime, displacement operated primarily through jurisdictional and sectoral substitution. Money launderers responded to offshore restrictions by developing domestic laundering capabilities, representing tactical displacement without fundamental behavioural change (Colella, Maskus and Peri, 2025). Drug policy displacement involved spatial relocation combined with supply chain disruption and increased potency variability, generating compound risks from multiple displacement mechanisms operating simultaneously (Ali et al., 2025; Ruane, 2025). Criminal network adaptation involved organisational restructuring and enhanced operational security, representing structural rather than behavioural displacement (Van Elteren, Vasconcelos and Lees, 2024).
These variations suggest that displacement mechanisms reflect the specific constraints and opportunities within each domain. Actors facing regulatory pressure adapt using whatever alternatives remain available, with displacement forms shaped by context rather than following universal patterns.
### Common underlying mechanisms
The second objective addressed common mechanisms driving displacement. Several emerged consistently across domains despite contextual variation.
Firstly, rational adaptation to changing cost structures appeared fundamental. When legal changes increased costs of existing approaches, targeted actors sought lower-cost alternatives rather than abandoning activities entirely. This adaptation occurred whether actors were money launderers seeking new jurisdictions, drug users seeking hidden consumption locations, or criminal organisations restructuring for enhanced security.
Secondly, regulatory interventions frequently disrupted established practices without providing acceptable alternatives. Drug recriminalisation eliminated access to predictable supply networks without creating alternative safe supply mechanisms. Anti-homeless laws prohibited survival behaviours without creating housing alternatives. These disruptions produced displacement by eliminating preferred options rather than reducing underlying motivations.
Thirdly, adversarial dynamics between regulators and regulated populations appeared to intensify adaptation efforts. Punitive approaches may signal categorical rejection rather than conditional sanction, reducing incentives for partial compliance. This dynamic appeared particularly evident in school discipline contexts where stricter rules correlated with increased defiance (Way, 2011).
### Evidence quality assessment
The third objective required assessing evidence quality and consistency. Overall, displacement findings rest upon a substantial and methodologically diverse evidence base. Multiple studies employed rigorous designs including natural experiments (Ali et al., 2025), difference-in-differences models (Colella, Maskus and Peri, 2025), network analysis (Van Elteren, Vasconcelos and Lees, 2024), and multilevel modelling of survey data (Way, 2011; Herring, Yarbrough and Alatorre, 2019).
Evidence strength varied by domain. Displacement in drug policy and financial crime rested upon particularly robust empirical foundations, with multiple studies converging on similar conclusions despite differing methodologies and contexts. Criminal network adaptation findings, whilst compelling, derived from more limited studies employing modelling approaches that required assumptions about network structures. Innovation displacement evidence was more heterogeneous, reflecting genuine context-dependence rather than methodological limitations.
Potential limitations warrant acknowledgement. Publication bias may inflate estimated displacement effects if null findings remain unpublished. Selection effects complicate causal interpretation when stricter laws are implemented in contexts already experiencing elevated problems. However, the consistency of findings across diverse methodological approaches provides reasonable confidence in the fundamental displacement pattern.
### Conditions promoting displacement versus reduction
The fourth objective examined conditions determining whether regulatory stringency produces displacement or genuine reduction. Several factors emerged as influential.
Availability of alternatives strongly predicted displacement occurrence. When targeted actors could readily substitute behaviours, methods, or locations, displacement was common. Conversely, when alternatives were genuinely constrained, reduction became more likely. This suggests that effective regulation must address alternatives simultaneously with targeted behaviours.
The relationship between regulatory pressure and underlying motivations affected outcomes. Regulations targeting behaviours driven by strong underlying motivations (addiction, economic necessity, organisational survival) consistently produced displacement because motivation persisted despite legal changes. Behaviours with weaker motivational foundations may be more susceptible to genuine deterrent effects.
Timing relative to organisational development mattered substantially for criminal networks. Early intervention before adaptive mechanisms developed proved more effective than targeting established organisations. This finding has important practical implications for law enforcement strategy.
Regulatory design features influenced whether stringency produced adaptation or compliance. Regulations perceived as legitimate, applied consistently, and accompanied by viable alternatives appeared more likely to achieve intended effects than arbitrary or purely punitive measures (Blind, Petersen and Riillo, 2017).
### Implications for regulatory design
The fifth objective concerned implications for regulatory design and harm reduction. Several recommendations emerge from the evidence synthesis.
Regulators should anticipate displacement when designing interventions targeting behaviours with strong underlying motivations. Impact assessments should explicitly consider where displaced activity might occur and whether displacement destinations involve greater or lesser harm than original contexts.
Harm reduction approaches may prove more effective than punitive strategies for behaviours like drug use where displacement reliably increases risk. Rather than driving activity underground, regulated access with harm reduction support can address problematic aspects whilst avoiding displacement-related harms.
Sequential or adaptive regulatory strategies may outperform static interventions. Criminal network evidence suggests that early intervention is more effective than attacks on established organisations. More broadly, regulations that anticipate and respond to adaptation may maintain effectiveness better than fixed approaches.
Coordination across jurisdictions and sectors can reduce arbitrage opportunities that enable displacement. Anti-money-laundering findings demonstrate that unilateral regulatory enhancement simply redirects flows to less regulated venues. International coordination, whilst challenging to achieve, addresses this fundamental limitation.
### Research gaps and limitations
The sixth objective required identifying research gaps. Several significant gaps emerged from this synthesis.
Longitudinal studies tracking displacement effects over extended periods remain scarce. Most existing research captures relatively short-term responses to regulatory changes. Whether displacement effects persist, intensify, or attenuate over time remains unclear for most domains.
Comparative effectiveness research examining alternative regulatory approaches is underdeveloped. Whilst displacement following punitive approaches is well-documented, less evidence exists comparing outcomes across different regulatory designs targeting similar behaviours.
Mechanisms linking regulatory characteristics to specific displacement forms require further investigation. Understanding why certain interventions produce particular adaptation patterns could inform more precise regulatory design.
Cross-national comparative research could illuminate how contextual factors shape displacement dynamics. Most existing research focuses on single-country contexts, limiting understanding of how institutional environments affect regulatory outcomes.
Conclusions
This dissertation has systematically evaluated whether tougher laws reduce disruptive behaviours or displace them into riskier forms. The evidence synthesised across financial regulation, drug policy, criminal justice, education, and innovation systems provides a clear answer: stringent legislation rarely eliminates targeted behaviours and frequently precipitates displacement into adapted, often riskier, forms.
The first objective—synthesising displacement evidence across domains—has been achieved through comprehensive review of 50 relevant studies spanning multiple regulatory contexts. Consistent displacement patterns emerged despite substantial contextual variation, suggesting fundamental limitations in deterrence-based approaches to behavioural change.
The second objective—identifying common displacement mechanisms—revealed that rational adaptation to changing cost structures, disruption of established practices without viable alternatives, and adversarial regulatory dynamics consistently drive displacement across diverse contexts.
The third objective—assessing evidence quality—found substantial methodological diversity supporting displacement conclusions, with particularly robust evidence in drug policy and financial crime domains. Whilst limitations exist, the convergence of findings across methodological approaches provides reasonable confidence in conclusions.
The fourth objective—examining conditions affecting displacement—identified availability of alternatives, motivational strength, intervention timing, and regulatory design as key factors influencing whether stringency produces displacement or reduction.
The fifth objective—examining implications for regulation—highlighted needs for anticipatory impact assessment, harm reduction approaches, adaptive regulation, and cross-jurisdictional coordination to address displacement phenomena effectively.
The sixth objective—identifying research gaps—revealed needs for longitudinal research, comparative effectiveness studies, mechanism investigation, and cross-national analysis.
These findings carry significant implications for legal theory and regulatory practice. The assumption that increasing penalties straightforwardly reduces prohibited behaviours requires substantial qualification. Effective regulation must account for adaptive responses, address underlying motivations, provide viable alternatives, and anticipate displacement destinations. One-size-fits-all punitive approaches appear particularly ill-suited to complex adaptive systems where targeted actors possess multiple alternatives.
Future research should prioritise longitudinal tracking of displacement effects, comparative analysis of alternative regulatory approaches, mechanism-focused investigation linking regulatory characteristics to specific displacement forms, and cross-national studies illuminating contextual influences on regulatory outcomes. Such research could substantially advance understanding of how legal frameworks can achieve genuine harm reduction rather than mere harm displacement.
In conclusion, whilst tougher laws may alter the landscape of disruption, evidence suggests they often shift rather than solve underlying problems. This recognition should fundamentally inform regulatory design, encouraging adaptive, evidence-based approaches that acknowledge the complex realities of behavioural change in response to legal intervention.
References
Acharya, V., Baghai, R. and Subramanian, K. (2009) ‘Labor laws and innovation’, The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), pp. 997–1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/674106
Ali, F., Mende-Gibson, J., Russell, C., Torres-Salbach, S., Bardwell, G., Bonn, M., Budau, J., Ivsins, A. and Rehm, J. (2025) ‘Stable patterns, shifting risks: the impact of British Columbia’s decriminalization and recriminalization policies on drug use behaviours’, Harm Reduction Journal, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-025-01322-9
Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by H. Paolucci. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. [Reprint 1963].
Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne.
Blind, K. (2016) ‘The impact of regulation on innovation’, in Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 450–482. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711856.00022
Blind, K., Petersen, S. and Riillo, C. (2017) ‘The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets’, Research Policy, 46(1), pp. 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.003
Bradford, A. (2024) ‘The false choice between digital regulation and innovation’, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4753107
Cerqueiro, G., Hegde, D., Penas, M. and Seamans, R. (2016) ‘Debtor rights, credit supply, and innovation’, ERN: Intellectual Property. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2246982
Colella, F., Maskus, K. and Peri, A. (2025) ‘Unintended consequences of anti-money-laundering regulations’, The Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaf086
Duijn, P., Kashirin, V. and Sloot, P. (2014) ‘The relative ineffectiveness of criminal network disruption’, Scientific Reports, 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04238
Guerette, R.T. and Bowers, K.J. (2009) ‘Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations’, Criminology, 47(4), pp. 1331–1368.
Herring, C., Yarbrough, D. and Alatorre, L. (2019) ‘Pervasive penality: how the criminalization of poverty perpetuates homelessness’, Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz004
Huang, X., Liu, W., Zhang, Z., Zou, X. and Li, P. (2023) ‘Quantity or quality: environmental legislation and corporate green innovations’, Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107684
Huang, Z. (2025) ‘The effectiveness and efficiency of corporate innovation under strict market regulation: based on China’s new securities law’, PLOS One, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326110
Nagin, D.S. (2013) ‘Deterrence in the twenty-first century’, Crime and Justice, 42(1), pp. 199–263.
Park, M. (2020) ‘Exploring the relationship between regulation’s strictness and destabilizing innovation’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), p. 19499. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2020.19499abstract
Park, M., Wu, S. and Funk, R. (2024) ‘Regulation and innovation revisited: how restrictive environments can promote destabilizing new technologies’, Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16770
Rhodes, T. (2009) ‘Risk environments and drug harms: a social science for harm reduction approach’, International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(3), pp. 193–201.
Ruane, D. (2025) ‘Reluctant risk-takers: how law enforcement practices at festivals can obstruct safer drug use’, International Journal on Drug Policy, 145, p. 105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.105013
Stojčić, N., Vujanović, N. and Baum, C. (2024) ‘Breaking or making futures: how laws and regulations shape innovation in emerging innovation systems’, Review of Managerial Science, 19, pp. 1743–1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00806-5
Trubnikov, D. (2017) ‘Analysing the impact of regulation on disruptive innovations: the case of wireless technology’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 17(4), pp. 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-016-0243-y
Van Elteren, C., Vasconcelos, V. and Lees, M. (2024) ‘Criminal organizations exhibit hysteresis, resilience, and robustness by balancing security and efficiency’, Scientific Reports, 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68445-0
Van Waarden, F. (2001) ‘Institutions and innovation: the legal environment of innovating firms’, Organization Studies, 22(5), pp. 765–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601225002
Way, S. (2011) ‘School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: the moderating effects of student perceptions’, The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), pp. 346–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01210.x
Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L.A., Ready, J., Eck, J.E., Hinkle, J.C. and Gajewski, F. (2006) ‘Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits’, Criminology, 44(3), pp. 549–592.
Wikström, P.O.H. (2006) ‘Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime’, in Wikström, P.O.H. and Sampson, R.J. (eds.) The Explanation of Crime: Context, Mechanisms, and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–107.
Yin, H., Wang, J., Cai, C., Zhang, Z. and Dong, H. (2025) ‘Strong financial regulation, shadow banking, and enterprises innovation inputs: a quasi-natural experiment based on the introduction of the “new regulation on asset management”’, International Review of Financial Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.103949
Yu, Y. and Zhang, N. (2022) ‘Environmental regulation and innovation: evidence from China’, Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102587
