Why do particular trust institutions have the type and extent of guardianship that they do? (E.g., why does our society place so many entry restrictions on who can be a doctor or a lawyer, but so few on who can be a child-care worker or a soldier or, for that matter, own a bank or hold public office?) Are there distinctive patterns of trust guardianship that arise after scandals that are unlike those that develop in the normal course of agency relationships? How do the trust guardians compare in their abilities to deter or limit the opportunities for abuse, to provide adequate protection in the event of socialcontrol failure, or to minimize the undesirable consequences of proceduralism? Which seem best able to withstand abuse themselves? What is the relationship between regulation/deregulation and trust?

QUESTION: The passage poses open research questions about why guardianship levels differ so dramatically across occupations and whether scandal-driven guardianship follows its own pattern. SEED: A comparative essay on why society heavily gates doctors and lawyers but barely gates bankers, child-care workers, or soldiers could be compelling.

Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Imper…, loc. 151