scholarly journals Standardization and Compliance Costs: Relevant Developments at EU Level

Author(s):  
Frank A. G. den Butter ◽  
John Hudson
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 111-147
Author(s):  
Hee-Yeon Sunwoo ◽  
Woo-Jong Lee
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. David Simpson

Abstract:It has occasionally been asserted that regulators typically overestimate the costs of the regulations they impose. A number of arguments have been proposed for why this might be the case. The most widely credited is that regulators fail sufficiently to appreciate the effects of innovation in reducing regulatory compliance costs. Most existing studies have found that regulators are more likely to over- than to underestimate costs. While it is difficult to develop summary statistics to aggregate the results of different studies of disparate industries, one such measure is the average of the ratio of ex ante estimates of compliance costs to ex post estimates of the same costs. This ratio is generally greater than one. In this paper I argue that neither the greater frequency of overestimates nor the fact that the average ratio of ex ante to ex post cost estimates is greater than one necessarily demonstrates that ex ante estimates are biased. There are several reasons to suppose that the distribution of compliance costs could be skewed, so that the median of the distribution would lie below the mean. It is not surprising, then, that most estimates would prove to be too high. Moreover, Jensen’s inequality implies that the expected ratio of ex ante to ex post compliance costs would be greater than one. I propose a regression-based test of the bias of ex ante compliance cost estimates, and cannot reject the hypothesis that estimates are unbiased. Failure to reject a hypothesis with limited and noisy data should not, of course, be interpreted as a strong argument to accept the hypothesis. Rather, this paper argues for the generation of more and better information. Despite the existence of a number of papers reporting ex ante and ex post compliance cost estimates, it is surprisingly difficult to get a large sample with which to make such comparisons.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER J. BRADY

Among the requirements a pension plan must meet to qualify for tax benefits are the nondiscrimination rules. Nondiscrimination rules are designed to ensure that pension benefits do not disproportionately accrue to highly compensated employees. But the rules are also complex and increase administrative and compliance costs associated with offering a pension plan. Recent pension reform proposals would simplify nondiscrimination rules, reducing administrative and compliance costs and potentially leading to more employers offering pension benefits. However, there are concerns that any loosening of the rules could lead to a drop in participation by low-wage workers. This paper examines the economic incentive that nondiscrimination rules provide to employers to cross subsidize employees; that is, the incentive to increase pension benefits (and total compensation) paid to low-paid workers for the express purpose of enabling high-paid workers to receive a higher proportion of compensation in the form of pension benefits. The study calculates the incentives faced by a hypothetical firm, and then illustrates how those incentives change when assumptions about employee contribution behavior, employee compensation, and employer-matching formulas are allowed to vary. Results show that only firms with a relatively low ratio of low-paid workers to high-paid workers would have an economic incentive under a standard 401(k) plan to cross subsidize employees. Although this incentive may exist in a large number of firms, these firms likely employ only a small portion of the workforce. This is ultimately an empirical question, however, and examining data on the distribution of earnings within pension plans, as well as determining if firms find nondiscrimination rules binding, would be a useful extension of this research.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muslichah Muslichah

The aim of this study is to examine the direct and indirect effect of  trust to government, costs of compliance and moral obligation on taxpayer compliance behavior. This study was conducted in  East Java.  The respondents of the study are business taxpayers. Fourty three taxpayers participated in this study. The findings of this study show that: (1)  the direct effect trust to government on taxpayer compliance behavior is  positive and significant (2)  the indirect effect of trust to government on taxpayer compliance behavior through moral obligation is positive and significant (3) the indirect effect of trust to government on taxpayer compliance behavior through costs of compliance is  insignificant. This study contribute not only to the research literature but also to help government to develop strategies toward improving compliance.<br /><br /> Keywords: trust to government, moral obligation, compliance costs, compliance  behavior.<br /><br />


2015 ◽  
Vol null (44) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
이진수 ◽  
김정호

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document