Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:11:48.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact Assessment in the European Union: Lessons from a Research Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Claire A. Dunlop  and
Claudio M. Radaelli
Claire A. Dunlop
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Claudio M. Radaelli
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we present some major lessons drawn from a recently completed research project. Our research dealt with ex ante evaluation, mainly impact assessment (IA).We shed new light on research questions about the control of bureaucracy, the role of IA in decisionmaking, economics and policy learning, and the narrative dimension of appraisal.We identify how our findings stand in relation to conventional arguments about these issues, and reflect on their normative implications. We finally reason on the possible extensions of our arguments to the wider field of policy evaluation, connecting IA and ex post evaluation.

Type
Symposium on Policy Evaluation in the EU
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pelkmans, Jacques, Sandrine Labory S and Majone, Giandomenico, “Better EU regulatory quality: Assessing current initiatives and new proposals”, in Galli, Giampaolo and Pelkmans, Jacques (eds.), Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness in Europe, Volume 1: Horizontal Issues (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000), pp. 461 et sqq.Google Scholar

2 Adelle, Camilla, Jordan, Andrew and Turnpenny, John, “Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices”, 30 Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy (2012), pp. 401 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunlop, Claire A, “The Temporal Dimension of Knowledge and the Limits of Policy Appraisal: Biofuels Policy in the UK”, 43 Policy Sciences (2010), pp. 343 et sqq. Google Scholar; Dunlop, Claire A, Fritsch, Oliver and Radaelli, Claudio M, “The Appraisal of Policy Appraisal – Learning About Impact Assessment”, 149 Revue Française D'Administration Publique (2014), pp. 163 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turnpenny, John, Radaelli, Claudio M, Jordan, Andrew and Jacob, Klaus, “The Policy and Politics of Policy Appraisal: Emerging Trends and New Directions”, 16 Journal of European Public Policy (2009), pp. 640 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Meuwese, Anne CM and van Voorst, Stijn, “Impact Assessment in Legal Studies”, in Dunlop, Claire A and Radaelli, Claudio M (eds.), Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, forthcoming).Google Scholar

4 Smismans, Stijn, “Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Challenges of Linking Ex Ante and Ex Post Appraisal”, European Journal of Risk Regulation (2015), this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 OECD, Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, (Paris: OECD Publications, 2014)Google ScholarPubMed; see Meuwese, Anne CM, Scheltema, Michiel and van der Velden, Lynn, “The OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation: an initial assessment”, European Journal of Risk Regulation, this issue.Google Scholar

6 Froud, Julie, Boden, Rebecca, Ogus, Anthony et al., Controlling the Regulators, (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Radaelli, Claudio M, “Steering the Community Regulatory System: The Challenges Ahead”, 77 Public Administration (1999), pp. 855 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Smismans, Stijn, “From Harmonization to Co–ordination? EU Law in the Lisbon Governance Architecture”, 18 Journal of European Public Policy (2011), pp. 504 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Commission Communication on the Regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT): State of play and outlook, COM(2014)368.

10 Commission Communication on Strengthening the foundations of Smart Regulation – improving evaluation, Communication, COM(2013)686.

11 Coletti, Paola, Evidence for Public Policy Design: How to Learn from Best Practice, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Commission Communication on Impact assessment, COM(2002)276; Commission Communication Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue. General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, COM(2002)704; Commission Communication Action plan: Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment, COM(2002)278.

13 Details available on the internet at http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/research/centres/ceg/research/projects/alreg/.

14 See Turnpenny, John, Radaelli, Claudio M, Jordan, Andrew et al., “The Policy and Politics of Policy Appraisal: Emerging Trends and New Directions”, 16 Journal of European Public Policy (2009), pp. 640 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Francesco, Fabrizio De, Transnational Policy Innovation: The OECD and the Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Analysi, (Colchester: ECPR Press, 2013).Google Scholar

16 McCubbins, Mathew D, Noll, Roger G and Weingast, Barry R, “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control”, 3 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (1989), pp. 243 et sqq. Google Scholar

17 Ibid.,at p. 481, emphasis in original; Epstein, David and O'Halloran, Sharyn, “Asymmetric Information, Delegation, and the Structure of Policy–making”, 11 Journal of Theoretical Politics (1999), pp. 37 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Damonte, Alessia, Dunlop, Claire A and Radaelli, Claudio M, “Controlling Bureaucracies with Fire Alarms: Policy Instruments and Cross–country Patterns’, 21 Journal of European Public Policy (2014), p. 1330 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See ibid, for the full–length explanation.

20 Croley, Steven, “White House Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Empirical Investigation”, 70 University of Chicago Law Review (2003) ,p. 821 et sqq, CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harrington, Winston, Heinzerling, Lisa and Morgenstern, Richard D (eds.), Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, (Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2009)Google Scholar; Shapiro, Stuart, “Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Regulatory Reforms: What Questions Need to be Asked?”, 31 Evaluation and Program Planning (2008), p. 223 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; West, William F, “The Institutionalization of Regulatory Review: Organizational Stability and Responsive Competence at OIRA”, 35 Presidential Studies Quarterly (2005), p. 76 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Yackee, Susan Webb, “Sweet–Talking the Fourth Branch: the Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking”, 16 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (2006), pp. 103 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Radaelli, Claudio M, “Rationality, Power, Management and Symbols: Four Images of Regulatory Impact Assessment”, 33 Scandinavian Political Studies, (2010), pp. 164 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on ex anteappraisal in the domain of sustainable development see Russel, Duncan and Turnpenny, John, “The Politics of Sustainable Development in UK Government: What Role for Integrated Policy Appraisal?”, 27 Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy (2009), pp. 340 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Radaelli, Claudio M and Meuwese, Anne CM, “Hard Questions, Hard Solutions: Proceduralisation through Impact Assessment in the EU”, 33 West European Politics (2010), pp. 136 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Hertin, Julia, Jordan, Andrew, Turnpenny, John et al., “Rationalising the Policy Mess? Ex ante Policy Assessment and the Utilisation of Knowledge in the Policy Process”, 41 Environment and Planning A (2009), pp. 1185 et sqq.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Turnpenny et al., “Policy and Politics of Policy Appraisal”, supra note 14, at p. 5.

25 Turnpenny, John, Nilsson, Måns, Russel, Duncan et al., “Why Is Integrating Policy Assessment So Hard? A Comparative Analysis of the Institutional Capacities and Constraints”, 51 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (2008), pp. 759 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Radaelli, Claudio M and Meuwese, Anne CM, “How the Regulatory State Differs. The Constitutional Dimensions of Rulemaking in the European Union and the United States”, XLII Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (2012), pp. 177 et sqq. Google Scholar

27 European Parliament Motion for a Resolution on the Revision of the Commission's impact assessment guidelines (2014), point 6, available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2014-0311&language=EN.

28 Ibid., point 8.

29 European Parliament Report on Guaranteeing Independent Impact Assessments, Committee on Legal Affairs A7-0159/2011.

30 See European Commission Press Release “President Juncker appoints Dr Edmund Stoiber Special Adviser for Better Regulation; First Vice–President Timmermans announces reform of the Impact Assessment Board”, available on the internet at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2761_en.htm.

31 Meuwese, Anne CM, Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2008).Google Scholar

32 Dunlop, Claire A, Magetti, Martino, Radaelli, Claudio M, et al., “The Many Uses of Regulatory Impact Assessment: A Metaanalysis of EU and UK Cases”, 6 Regulation & Governance (2012), pp. 23 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Alemanno, Alberto, “Impact Asessment and Courts”, in Dunlop, Claire A. and Radaelli, Claudio M. (eds.), Handbook of Impact Assessment, (Edward Elgar, forthcoming).Google Scholar

34 Majone, Giandomenico D, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, 1st ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

35 Radaelli and Meuwese, “Hard Questions, Hard Solutions”, supra note 23, at p. 7.

36 The same findings appear in Melloni, Erica, “Ten Years of European Impact Assessment: How It Works, for What and for Whom”, 9 World Political Science Review (2013), pp. 263 et sqq. Google Scholar

37 Radaelli and Meuwese, “Hard Questions, Hard Solutions”, supra note 23, at p. 7.

38 Dunlop et al., “The Many Uses of Regulatory Impact Assessment”, supranote 32, at p. 10; Hertin et al., “Rationalising the policy mess?”, supra note 24, at p. 7; Schrefler, Lorna, “The Usage of Scientific Knowledge by Independent Regulatory Agencies”, 23 Governance (2010), pp. 309 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Hahn, Robert W and Dudley, Patrick M, “How Well Does the Government Do Cost–Benefit Analysis?”, Working Paper 04/01, (AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2004);Google Scholar Renda, Andrea, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State, (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2006)Google Scholar; Cecot, Caroline, Hahn, Robert, Renda, Andrea et al., “An Evaluation of the Quality of Impact Assessment in the European Union with Lessons for the US and the EU”, 2 Regulation & Governance (2008), pp. 405 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Lascoumes, Pierre and Galès, Patrick Le, “Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation”, 20 Governance (2007), pp. 1 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Kysar, Douglas A, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental Law and the Search for Objectivity, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Colettti, Paola and Radaelli, Claudio M, “Economic Rationales, Learning, and Regulatory Policy Instruments”, 91 Public Administration (2013), pp. 1056 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 See Torriti, Jacopo, “The Standard cost Model: When Better Regulation Fights Against Red–tape” in Stephen Weatherill (ed.), Better Regulation,(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007)Google Scholar.

44 Helm, Dieter, “Regulatory Reform, Capture, and the Regulatory Burden”, 22 Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2006), pp. 169 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Paola Colletti and Claudio M. Radaelli, “Economic Rationales”, supra note 42, at p. 13.

46 Blume, Stuart S, “Policy as Theory: A Framework for Understanding the Contribution of Social Science to Welfare Policy”, 20 Acta Sociologica (1977), pp. 247 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Radaelli, Claudio M, Dunlop, Claire A and Fritsch, Oliver, “Narrating Impact Assessment in the European Union”, 12 European Political Science (2013), pp. 500 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 E.g. Cialdini, Robert B, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (New York, NY: Harper, 2007).Google Scholar

49 Cram, Laura, “Governance ‘to Go': Domestic Actors, Institutions and the Boundaries of the Possible”, 39 Journal of Common Market Studies (2001), pp. 595 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Dunlop et al., “The Many Uses of Regulatory Impact Assessment”, supranote 32, at p. 10.

51 Radaelli, Dunlop and Fritsch, “Narrating Impact Assessment”, supra note 47, at p. 15.