Businesses subject to regulation complain about the regulations imposed as they can restrain trade however, many timeshare consumers and there, advocates, believe regulation is necessary and to protect the public interest and the timeshare market itself. Timeshare is a prime example as many companies operate fairly, whilst do not.
Government regulation consists of bundle of requirements they believe need to be impose on traders to achieve good and sustainable market. These may include better and cheaper services and quality goods, protection unfair and/or fair competition guidelines.
Failure to meet regulatory regulations should result in fines, orders to cease doing certain things, or, in some cases - criminal penalties and regulations is the carrot and if contravened the enforcement is the stick.
Economists distinguish between two types of regulation which are economic and social regulations.
Economic regulation refers to rules that limit who can enter a business (entry controls) and what prices they may charge (price controls). For example, professionals like lawyers, accountants, financial advisers, etc. Some must have licenses in order to trade and these are examples of entry controls.
Price controls exist in airlines, holidays, haulage, and railroads for example, but price controls do not exist in Timeshare sales on account of the different apartments and quality of the resorts. Traders in regulatory price controls are told what prices they could charge, or at least what not to exceed. Companies providing Timeshare management service could be subject to price controls if regulators had the sprit to do so, that said today no management price controls existed but do exist in the European resale market.
“Social regulation” refers to the broad category of rules that govern how Timeshare business or Timeshare clubs carries out its activities and are set out in law with a view to correcting one or more “market failures.” A classic way in which a timeshare market fail is when rouge resorts and Timeshare sellers fail to consider the cost their activities imparts on the entire industry.
When this happens, the bad activities should be pursued intensely by regulations and in ways that protect consumers and other resorts to prevent failure or to stem harm to innocent third parties. For example, left to its own devices, a timeshare resort may financially impugn consumers, causing harmful blight to other resort traders, Banks and the like. Governments can respond to this problem by setting standards in the sales process and the management of timeshare Clubs.
Another kind of market failure arises when a timeshare seller fails to supply sufficient information for consumers to make informed choices. Disclosure requirements in regulations can solve this problem, at least in principle. Examples include “truthful statement” disclosures of interest rates and other pertinent features of bank loans. This requires disclosures so potential harm is avoided.
Few consumes, read the voluminous terms conditions that are inserted into convoluted cross contracts. When policymakers conclude that consumers may be unable to effectively process or act on the information that is disclosed, governments can and should mandate certain regulations and/or expected practices. Somewhat surprisingly, lawmakers have gradually begun to pay attention to what economists have recommended and deregulated because of pressure from certain segments of the business community. If timeshare markets are reasonably competitive and offer good products, there is no place for price or social regulation.
Economists have encouraged lawmakers to reduce entry controls, so Bank lenders cannot enter loan market except in certain situations. For example, regulators may closely scrutinise new banks before handing out charters. Licensing systems still remain, for lawyers, accountants, and the like because, some lawmakers believe damage will occur from low-quality providers and that damage can be substantial or irreparable.
Because a well-functioning economy will have market failures from time to time, there will always be a case for some regulation. In some of these cases, it is useful to think of regulation as an alternative to direct government intervention.
Unlike direct expenditures or tax incentives, which are recorded as part of the government’s budget, the spending by private firms and individuals to comply with government mandates has not. Of course, regulations come with a price tag. Regulations is ineffective unless enforcement walks hand in hand with it, so reviewers try to ensure regulation passes some kind of benefit - cost test before - they become final.
There continues to be spirited debate—largely between economists and non-economists—about the appropriateness of benefit-