1 INDICATORS OF REGULATORY QUALITY Project website Claudio M. Radaelli Brussels, 25 January 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ireland Stat Fiachra Kennedy Central Expenditure Evaluation Unit Department of Public Expenditure & Reform.
Advertisements

Twenty years of EU co-financed programmes in Greece:
Implications for the Regions EU-Regional Policy 1 Governance White Paper Introduction Adoption of White Paper on European Governance, July 25, 2001 Aim:
1 Introducing Multi-Level Government in the EUs Better Regulation Agenda Werner Stengg European Commission; DG Internal Market and Services; Impact Assessment,
Smart regulation communication HLG AB, 7 December 2010
1 SG C Commission Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness COM (2012) 746 Working Group on Better Regulation Meeting of 4 th March, 2013 Michael Gremminger.
1 DG Enterprise & Industry European Commission E.U. conference of Administrative Burden Reduction Malta, 1 February 2008 Burden Reduction in Support of.
National Evaluation and Results Management System– Sinergia – Two decades of lessons and experiences Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation of Public.
Ministère du budget et de la réforme de l’Etat 6/3/2015 OECD MENA 4 May 2007 C.H. MONTIN What is a regulatory reform review and why is it useful ? Experience.
1 1 st EIONET Workshop on Industrial Pollution 04 March 2015 Andreas Grangler DG Environment Unit C.4 (new!) – Industrial emissions E-PRTR Refit evaluation.
The Italian Institutional Design for Administrative Simplification HIGH LEVEL REGIONAL SEMINAR ON “STRATEGIES, TOOLS AND CAPACITIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE.
Session 3 - Plenary on implementing Principle 1 on an Explicit Policy on Regulatory Quality, Principle 3 on Regulatory Oversight, and Principle 6 on Reviewing.
Integration of Regulatory Impact Assessment into the decision making process in the Czech Republic Aleš Pecka Department of Regulatory Reform and Public.
Simple, Effective, Transparent Regulation: Best Practices in OECD countries Cesar Cordova-Novion Deputy Head of Programme Regulatory Reform, OECD.
Smart Regulation Responding to the needs of SMEs Commission Communication COM(2013) final of
1 Ex-ante impact assessment support for public policies evaluation and sector forecasting substantiation authors: Dana Plăvicheanu, Remus Carteleanu ROMANIA.
Challenges of Global Alcohol Policy Developments FIVS Public Policy Conference 7-9 April 2014 Brussels, Belgium.
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland Experience and new arrangements Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Poland Athens,
GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA MINISTRY OF PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGING AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Evaluation Central Unit Development of the Evaluation.
Evaluation methods and tools (Focus on delivery mechanism) Jela Tvrdonova, 2014.
Approaches to quality assurance TIPA’s perspectives Fatmir Demneri.
1 UNDECLARED WORK IN CROATIA Executive Capacity of Governance and Underground Economy: The Case of Croatia Zagrebl, September 1, 2015.
Animal Welfare EU Strategy Introduction Community Action Plan The Commission's commitment to EU citizens, stakeholders, the EP and.
Reformed Partnership and Multi-Level Governance Ana Maria Dobre Political Administrator General Council Secretariat
Strategy and Regulatory Frameworks
Challenges for the EU’s Better Regulation Strategy Frank Frick Regulatory Craft Conference Halifax / Canada, September 29th, 2008.
European Commission Introduction to the Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity PROGRESS
Communication Paper on Smart Regulation COM(2010) 543, 8 October 2010 Presentation by Savia Orphanidou 3 rd November 2010.
1 DG Enterprise & Industry European Commission Conference on Better Regulation: Practical Steps Forward Reykjavík 6 June 2006 OVERVIEW OF THE BETTER REGULATION.
Integrated Risk Management Charles Yoe, PhD Institute for Water Resources 2009.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 2c – Process Evaluation.
Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework “Training the Trainers” November 2008 RIA in the EU by Lydia Jørgensen, Senior.
111 Synthesis of Questionnaires. Thematic concentration  Most of the new member states support the suggested principle while maintaining the element.
2009/10/06 STUDY ON RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Alternative title slide.
The Commission's Impact Assessment system 18 September 2014 María Dolores Montesinos Impact Assessment unit Secretariat General 1.
HELPING THE NATION SPEND WISELY Evaluating the quality and use of Impact Assessments The role and approach of the NAO.
Sustainable Urban Transport Planning General Presentation.
The Role of Peer Review in a Multilateral Framework on Competition Policy Andrea Bruce Investment Trade Policy UNCTAD Regional Seminar for Latin America.
ROMANIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION National Centre for Development of Vocational Education and Training Implementation Unit of Phare.
Changes in the context of evaluation and assessment: the impact of the European Lifelong Learning strategy Romuald Normand, Institute of Education Lyon,
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
ELearning Socrates Minerva Concertation Meeting Helsinki 3 July 2006 « Dissemination and Exploitation of Results » Janette Sinclair European Commission.
Social Analysis Workshop on Country Analytical Work June 19, 2001 Anis Ahmad Dani World Bank, Social Development Department.
Procurement & Fiduciary services Department Development Bank African The 1 THE HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT REFORMS IN AFRICA Progress, Challenges,
Guidelines Recommandations. Role Ideal mediator for bridging between research findings and actual clinical practice Ideal tool for professionals, managers,
ASSESSING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN FISCAL POLICY PROPOSED INDICATOR.
An overview of OECD Strategies for Improving Regulatory Performance Regulatory Reform and Building Governance Capacities – New Delhi 3 December 2009 Mr.
Towards a Central Africa Trade Facilitation Strategy: Customs union and Policy Dialogue BBL – September 29 th 2011.
SEVESO II transposition and implementation: Possible approaches and lessons learned from member states and new member states SEVESO II transposition and.
1 Quality Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems Stéphane Jacobzone, Chang Won Choi, Claire Miguet The views are the author’s responsibility OECD.
Better regulation in the Commission Jonathon Stoodley Head of Unit C.1 Evaluation, Regulatory Fitness and Performance Secretariat General of the European.
Creating the environment for business Assessment of the Implementation by the Member States of the IPPC Directive Advisory Group Meeting Friday 13 th January.
Project: EaP countries cooperation for promoting quality assurance in higher education Maria Stratan European Institute for Political Studies of Moldova.
Session 3 General RIA Training 6–8 July 2009 EuropeAid/125317/D/SER/TR
Regulatory Strategies and Solutions Group, LLC
Cesar Cordova-Novion Deputy Head of Programme Regulatory Reform, OECD
Lifelong Learning policies and the Open Method of Cooperation
Presentation on Expenditure Management By Team GVF
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Claire NAUWELAERS, independent policy expert
The Group of Directors and Experts of Better Regulation (DBR)
Preparations for post-2020 Impact Assessment European Commission Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy Unit DGA Policy.
Statistics Governance and Quality Assurance: the Experience of FAO
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland
The role of the ECCP (1) The involvement of all relevant stakeholders – public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society bodies – at.
The partnership principle in the implementation of the CSF funds ___ Elements for a European Code of Conduct.
Animal Welfare EU Strategy
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
Culture Statistics: policy needs
Ad hoc Group of Experts on Better Regulation
Presentation transcript:

1 INDICATORS OF REGULATORY QUALITY Project website Claudio M. Radaelli Brussels, 25 January 2005

2 Description of the project Regulatory quality is a complex concept. In our project we acknowledge the role of different stakeholders and institutional contexts Quality measured in terms of design, activity-output, and real-world outcome Assessment of indicators and indexes proposed in the literature Analysis of better regulation programmes: focus on four tools (IA, Simplif., Access, Consultation) Questionnaire sent to support network in May 2004 The project is about the DESIGN of indicators. We have not calculated indicators, neither have we scored Member States

3 Why quality? Quality versus quantity Quality and efficiency of regulations Better regulation as a public policy (actors, resources, instruments, and decision- making structure) Quality and the Lisbon strategy Quality and indicators

4 Measuring regulatory quality in EU Member States (questionnaire) Diffusion of the Mandelkern report principles Most countries have opted for an experimental approach to indicators – one based on the gradual introduction of simple measures Setting quantitative targets is an effective way to encourage public administration to implement measurement systems (as shown by the case of B, DK, NL and S) No systematic use of cost-benefit analysis in the EU Member States. Rather, the emphasis is on how stakeholders are affected by proposed regs

5 Diffusion of principles but different practice: three clusters 1. Tools of better regulation are still at the stage of pilot project. Measurement of quality has been considered, but limited activity. 2. Basic systems of quality assurance and focus on administrative burdens. 3. Sophisticated quality assurance, well-embedded impact assessment, initiatives for the measurement of quality which target the whole regulatory process

6 Combining diversity of approaches and common progress in the EU Different practice is compatible with common progress A common approach, shared beliefs about regulatory quality and its components, and sense of direction towards the Lisbon goals Three specific sets of indicators Three specific sets of indicators

7 The hard questions FROM INSTRUMENTS TO POLICY: How do we know that a good IA produces better regulation? FROM POLICY TO REGULATORY OUTPUT: How do we know that ‘better regulation policy’ produces better regulations? FROM REGULATORY OUTPUT TO FINAL ECONOMIC OUTCOME: What is the causal chain going from good regulation to real-world economic outcomes? How robust is it?

8 How we answer these questions Focus on how regulation changes the behaviour or stakeholders Selection of five indicators that measure the quality of better regulation policy without going too far in the causal chain We use Lisbon indicators, but we do not test the quality of better regulation policy directly on economic indicators like the growth of the knowledge-based economy

9 The three systems 1. Design of better regulation policy and tools. Macro and ex-ante 2. Ex-post and micro 3. Bridge between measurement of regulatory quality and the systematic evaluation of better regulation as public policy

10 Where do the indicators come from? Operationalisation of the principles of better regulation Questionnaire and consultation with support network Experience of MS and other countries Criteria of “usable knowledge” = indicators that can be embedded in policy processes

11 Indicators – characteristics of system 1: quality of the process an ex-ante macro-system - does not go down to the level of individual impact assessments or consultations based on objective indicators, it covers the design of better regulation policies, instruments (contents of formal guidance), and supporting and quality assurance activities can be managed by coordinating units in MSs and the SG in the Commission

12 Quality assurance Indicator What is measured Interpretation Data collection Quantitative targets Existence or absence Targets facilitate implem. of BR programmes IRQ dataset Reporting on progress Existence or absence Accountability and transparency IRQ dataset Performance of quality assurance unit Existence or absence Establishing quantitative criteria to assess success or failure IRQ dataset Civil society – public official document Existence or absence Legitimacy of better regulation programmes Official guidance Monitoring and evaluation Existence or absence Culture of monitoring and evaluation IRQ database plus official guidance

13 Indicators – characteristics of system 2: internal evaluation An ex-post micro-level system focused on what the tools of better regulation deliver in a given time-period We look at guidance as designed in system 1 and measure what has been achieved

14 System 2 contains the following: 1. A simple checklist on the quality of individual impact assessments and major consultations 2. Real-world measures of the impact of better regulation policies (subjective: surveys over time) 3. Five real-world measures of the impact of better regulation policies (objective) 4. Limited number of important indicators of economic outcome – role of causal chains

15 Survey of regulators Percentage of regulators who think that IA has the following effect: [1] Makes policy formulation more transparent [2] Speeds up / delays policy implementation [3] Reduces conflict at the stage of policy formulation [4] Reduces conflict at the stage of policy implementation [5] Be more likely to represent the preferences of citizens [6] Final policy decision will be more likely to achieve goals [7] Final policy decision be more likely to represent a consensus among affected entities [8] Final policy decision be more likely to create open markets

16 Survey of citizens and firms [1] % of citizens who think that their views are taken on board in the development of single market policy in the EU [2] % of firms who think that the quality of regulation in the EU (including both EU and domestic rules) has improved over the last three years [3] % of firms who think that participation in EU-level consultation makes an impact on the final decision [4] % of firms who think that EU policy has an impact in opening markets, making it easier to compete, and generating competition in the professions [5] % of firms who think that in last three years restrictions and obstacles to their business have disappeared altogether or significantly reduced [6] % of firms who think that regulatory changes at the EU level are predictable

17 The Five Real-World measures of better regulation policy [1] Estimate of total regulatory costs delivered by regulations for which impact assessments (IAs) were prepared in year xxxx / Estimate of total regulatory benefits delivered by regulations for which IAs were prepared in year xxxx [2] Net benefits delivered by regulations for which IAs were prepared in year t / Net benefits delivered by regulations for which IAs were prepared in year t-1 [3] Total cost reduction resulting from simplification [4] Annual rate of reduction in the total administrative burdens stemming from EU legislation [5] Cost of administrative procedures eliminated in year t / Cost of administrative procedures eliminated in year t-1

18 System 3: external evaluation “All policies can be evaluated, and better regulation is no exception” no matter how sophisticated, indicators are just a component of quality assurance the latter requires strategic and operational management, specific structures, and dedicated tools one important element is external evaluation indicators must be complemented by interviews, case studies, etc. external evaluation should be done by think tanks, academics, and stakeholders - notion of pluralistic evaluation

19 Indicators – which system is suitable for whom? system 1 could be used by the cluster of Member States with basic approaches to regulatory quality and impact assessment in experimental-pilot stage. They should move as soon as possible to the second system system 2 could be used by the cluster in which consultation, simplification, and the assessment of administrative burdens are already well embedded - however, some simple indicators of this system can be adopted by all EU governments now, no need to wait

20 Indicators – which system is suitable for whom? finally, system 3 is applicable to countries with sophisticated quality assurance mechanisms (as well as to the Commission)

21 How to use indicators Open method of coordination High-level group on Competitiveness – Competitiveness Council, this can be a body that can adopt indicators DBER can be the forum where data are collected and technical discussions on indicators take place

22 Why use open method of coordination? Better regulation policy is an essential component of the Lisbon agenda. It involves different levels of governance. A responsibility for the EU and the Member States

23 There is an OMC in the making: 1. Principles (Mandelkern) 2. National programmes of regulatory reform 3. Peer review of reforms (within DBER) 4. Timetable (Lisbon) 5. Need to complete OMC with Indicators and iterative processes