Better Regulatory Impact Assessment

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai P.- Purnhagen ◽  
Peter H. Feindt
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Potential Models ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
Regulatory Impact Assessment

The European Commission's (Commission) Better Regulation Strategy (BRS) is the major guideline for the Commission to assess legislation. It draws on regulatory impact assessment (RIA) via cost–benefit analysis (CBA), expert advice, and simplification in EU law–making. Yet, the practice of RIA by the Commission as well as in EU member states, while unavoidably incomplete, has shown avoidable shortcomings. The Commission's New Better Regulation Strategy of 2015 (NBRS) contains language that appears to address these shortcomings. If pursued consequentially, it would require an approach that resembles what has been called responsive behavioural regulation. At the same time, global initiatives from inter alia the World Bank emerge to include behavioural insights into policy analysis in the form of responsive regulation. This piece assesses potential models of RIA that can help to articulate the behavioural assumptions which are implied by NBRS as enshrined in the policy document “Better regulation for better results”. The methodological implications of the NBRS require a significant departure from the reliance on classical CBA, which is characteristic for the previous “Better Regulation” documents submitted by the Commission and which we term Old Better Regulation Strategy (OBRS).

scholarly journals Regulatory Measurements in Policy Coordinated Practices: The Case of Promoting Renewable Energy and Cleaner Transport in Sweden

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Hansson ◽  
Lena Nerhagen
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
The Eu

International organisations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU), are seeking to implement a cohesive Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) system in order to achieve better regulation and increased unity and transparency. Central to these evaluations is the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and related tools. A comprehensive analysis of the use of impact assessment in the EU shows that many assessments lack important economic components. This paper draws on an extensive document study of the Swedish policy making process related to the EU Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. The aim of the paper is to examine how CBA is presented, negotiated and accounted for by central actors within a policy setting influenced by negotiation and policy coordination. The paper departs from a theoretical perspective on policy coordination and shows how this factor must be considered when explaining the low use of CBA. It concludes that the Swedish policy tradition, wherein the national government relies on consensus-based coordination between agencies, might counteract a more explicit assessment of different policy options. The paper also proposes a model that can be used for further studies on CBA and policy coordination.

scholarly journals Better regulation in the EU and its member states: experience for Ukraine

2019 ◽  
pp. 20-30
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Rudik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Regulatory Impact Assessment

The article examines the experience of better regulation in the EU and its member states. The European Union and the 28 EU member states show a strong political commitment towards regulatory reform. In the European Union, regulatory policy has progressed under the better regulation agenda and played a crucial role in shaping the current regulatory processes. At the same time, all EU member states have adopted an explicit policy to promote the quality of regulations. To this end, the author analyses the key findings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2019 report «Better Regulation Practices across the European Union». In the report the OECD has analysed the application of all 28 EU member states’ regulatory management tools to EU-made laws and regulations. The article also gives examples of the best regulatory practices of the EU member states such as Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom. The article concludes that the experience of the EU and its member states in developing and implementing a better regulation policy, in particular the better regulation agenda, is beneficial for Ukraine. In this regard, the article highlights the following legislative and institutional components of this experience: stakeholder engagement in the process of policymaking and regulatory policy implementation by automatically publishing of draft regulatory acts and accompanying impact assessments on the specially designed interactive government portal; highlighting the preliminary and final stages of regulatory impact assessment of all regulations, except for deregulatory and low-cost measures, thereby taking into account stakeholder comments; regular and systematic conduct of ex ante and ex-post evaluation of laws and regulations on the basis of a specially developed sound evidence-based methodology; conducting of regulatory impact assessment and stakeholder engagement during the process of EU directives transposition into member states’ national legislation; introduction of systematic regulatory oversight and quality control of regulatory management tools, which should cover not only regulatory impact assessment practice but also stakeholder engagement.

scholarly journals Regulatory Impact Assessment in Macedonia and Estonia: Lessons (to be) Learned

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Risteska
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Current System ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
Regulatory Impact Assessment

Considering that legislation (primary and secondary legislation) is the most commonly used instrument for policy-making, and that the state reached out to regulate more to improve the environment for doing business in the financial crises of 2008-2009, we look at the Regulatory Impact Assessment (hereinafter RIA), which is an important segment of the policy-making cycle allowing for identification of impact of laws on various segments of society including businesses. This policy analysis instrument has been employed in most the EU member states as well as in the countries that seek for EU accession such as Macedonia. Since RIA is at the early stage of development in Macedonia we have taken Estonia as a case study and identify the lessons Macedonia can learn from Estonia. The analysis shows that in Macedonia RIA was mostly conceived as part of an economic reform package and has resulted in RIA being confined to specific sectors instead of being made fully part of the general policy-making. The current system therefore still falls short of exploring the full potential of RIA as a tool for better regulation. Coordination of the RIA process, the extension of the scope as well as the methods for conducting RIA are some of the areas Macedonia can improve taking the example of Estonia.

scholarly journals CHANGES IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FAMILY 2003–2014: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERING ACHIEVEMENTS, GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (01) ◽  
pp. 1550003 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK VANCLAY
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Social Risk ◽  
Proportional Change ◽  
The Impact

Over 150 forms of impact assessment can be identified using Google searches, with several new forms appearing since 2003. Since then, the popularity of the various members of the impact assessment family has changed, partly in response to legislative and regulatory changes, and general trends in society. The information explosion and expansion of the internet has resulted in a 32 fold increase in the number of hits for "impact assessment", now over 12 million. The conventional methods most frequently mentioned in 2003 had relatively low proportional change over the last 10 years but remain amongst the most frequently mentioned in 2014: risk assessment, public participation, cost-benefit analysis, public involvement, environmental monitoring, and project evaluation. The terms with highest proportional change (i.e. the super-hot topics) were primarily social concerns, including: equality impact assessment, welfare impact assessment, mental health impact assessment, disability impact assessment, human impact assessment, social impact assessment, and social risk assessment. Other terms that had high proportional change included life cycle impact assessment. Information about the relative popularity of the various forms of impact assessment is used in this paper to discuss issues and trends in the broad field of impact assessment.

Better Regulation – An Ongoing Journey

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Chase ◽  
Adam Schlosser
Keyword(s):  
Good Governance ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Regulatory Process ◽  
Post Evaluation ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Guidance Needs ◽  
Key Aspects

The Commission's new Better Regulation package represents a step forward in the European Union’s decade–long journey to bringing coherence and rationality to its legislative and regulatory process. But as the Communication on the package itself suggests, the journey is far from over.The Communication consistently emphasizes the key aspects of good regulation: quality over quantity; taking time to get proposals right; evidence–based decision making; open and continuous consultation to gather evidence from all stakeholders; rigorous impact assessments and cost–benefit analysis; applying these tools to regulatory measures as well as legislation; and implementing a robust ex–post evaluation program. It is important as well that the Secretariat General published unified and detailed guidance for Commission officials on how each step of the regulatory process should work, with a “tool–box” to elaborate further on these steps.All of this is good. Yet in some areas, the Commission misses opportunities to go farther down the good governance road, and in others the guidance needs to be made much more explicit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document