Some specialized tribunals with jurisdiction over economic regulation are empowered to dictate general measures on economic sectors, thus regulating directly through rulings that usually originate in adversarial proceedings. This offers a chance to evaluate the convenience of using proceedings with the form of a trial for regulatory ends.
This paper explores the following possible procedural advantages of such a system: (i) affected parties could provide relevant arguments or data in support of their preferred policy and refute the positions of others in a public discussion; (ii) this process might prove to be more transparent and subject to stronger control from affected parties than when the administration regulates; and (iii) the rationale behind a chosen policy might also be better explained and justified in the ruling than it usually is when administrative agencies establish or modify economic regulations.