The public’s preferences for and attitude toward regulatory policy have almost no bearing on the theory of market failure, on the basis of which economists usually make the case for or against regulation. Instead, whatever values and beliefs the public tend to endorse, they determine, in large measure, the directions and contents of regulations. It is thus no surprise that the NGOs play an immensely important role in the areas of regulatory policy today. Political scientists tend to view the differences in the public's policy preferences from the perspective of liberalism versus conservatism. This dichotomy does not lead us far toward understanding today's public debate over regulatory policies. By adopting a concept of regulatory culture, this paper seeks to approach such issues as being raised in the area of regulation but inexplicable by virtue of existing theories. Just as political scientists generally attribute different adherences to certain political parties and political ideologies to political culture, so would this paper try to explain differences in the public's preferences for or against certain regulations by harnessing the new concept of regulatory culture, which can be defined as “values and beliefs concerning the institutional construction of regulations.” For this purpose, a new theory(grid-group theory) of political culture pioneered by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky will be highlighted in an attempt to explore the extent to which the theory could be made beneficially applicable to the study of regulation. Some implications follow.