Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:22:07.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation: An Initial Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Meuwese ,
Michiel Scheltema  and
Lynn van der Velden
Anne Meuwese
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
Michiel Scheltema
Affiliation:
General Administrative Procudure Act (GALA)
Lynn van der Velden
Affiliation:
Dutch Ministry of the Interior
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Designing a framework for evaluating laws, rules and policies within any given legal system is a daunting task. Comprehensive schemes risk ending up as mere paper realities because of the demands they place on evaluatorsas well as on the addressees of evaluations. More realistic evaluation frameworks on the other hand may not yield many results. The OECD has a long track record of encouraging member countries to deal with ‘regulation’ in the wider sense of the word in a rationalistic and systematic way. These encouragements tend to involve recommendations, peer reviews,and the use of country surveys in order to establish progress in what the OECD usually calls ‘regulatory policy’ or ‘regulatory management’ (‘better regulation’ in EU parlance and sometimes referred to as ‘meta-regulation’ in the literature). Recently a new tool has been added. In a move parallel to the EU's efforts to ‘complete the regulatory cycle’, the OECD has developed a new Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation (hereafter referred to as ‘Framework’).

Type
Symposium on Policy Evaluation in the EU
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 101 - 110
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 ‘Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Regulatory Policy and Governance’, Paris 2012.

2 Fabricio Pagani, “Peer Review as a Tool for Co–operation and Change: An Analysis of an OECD Working Method”, OECD Publishing (2002).

3 Luchetta, Giacomo, “Impact Assessment and the Policy Cycle in the EU”, The European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 561 et sqq.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellen Mastenbroek, Stijn van Voorst and Anne Meuwese, “Towards better problem–solving in the European Union? Analyzing ex post evaluation of EU legislation”, Paper prepared for presentation at the NIG Annual Conference, 28-29 November 2013, Enschede, The Netherlands.

4 OECD (2014), OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, OECD Publishing. The Framework was presented at an expert meeting in The Hague on 17-18 June 2014. The following expert papers are available with background information about the development of the Framework: Cary Coglianese, “Measuring Regulatory Performance. Evaluating the Impact of Regulation and Regulatory Policy”, Expert Paper No. 1, August 2012, OECD Publishing; Claudio Radaelli & Oliver Fritsch, “Measuring Regulatory Performance. Evaluating Regulatory Management Tools and Programmes”, Expert Paper No. 2, July 2012, OECD Publishing; David Parker & Colin Kirkpatrick, “Measuring Regulatory Performance. The Economic Impact of Regulatory Policy: A Literature Review of Quantitative Evidence”, Expert Paper No. 3, August 2012, OECD Publishing.

5 Stern, Elliot, “Evaluation policy in the European Union and its institutions”, in Trochim, William, Mark, Melvin, and Cooksy, Leslie (eds.), Evaluation policy and evaluation practice: New directions for evaluation (San Francisco: Jossy–Bass, 2009), pp. 67 et sqq..Google Scholar

6 In the full report “The Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation of the OECD in the light of experience with the General Administrative Law Act: a pilot study” of 6 February 2014 we examine whether any success factors and lessons that were collected in the creation of the GALA (both drafting and evaluation) are reflected in, or conversely are conspicuously absent from, the Framework (retrospective matching) and we analyze how useful the Framework, and in particular the suggestions regarding data collection for indicators might be for future evaluation in this context (prospective viability check). Our findings have been summarized in OECD Framework, at pp. 82 et sqq..

7 The obligation to evaluate, which was included until 1 January 2013 in Section 11(1) of the GALA, resulted in three official evaluations of the GALA since it came into force: application and effects of the General Administrative Law Act 1994-1996; application and effects of the General Administrative Law Act 1997-2001; application and effects of the General Administrative Law Act 2002-2006.

8 OECD Framework, at pp. 23 et sqq..

9 Coglianese, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5.

10 Radaelli and Fritsch, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5.

11 OECD Framework, at. pp. 38-39.

12 Radaelli, Claudio, “Measuring Regulatory Quality? No Thanks (But Why Not?)”, European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 108 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems, available on the Internet at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Indicators-RMS.htm, last accessed 19 December 2014.

14 Parker and Kirkpatrick, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5.

15 OECD Framework, at p. 32.

16 OECD Framework, at pp. 17-18.

17 Ibid.

18 See Smismans, “Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Challenges of Linking Ex Ante and Ex Post Appraisal”, in this issue.

19 Chapter 2 of the OECD Framework, at pp. 31-40.

20 Radaelli, “Measuring regulatory quality?”, supra note 13.

21 OECD Framework, Recommendation 7.5.

22 OECD Framework, Indicator ‘Number of Laws’, at p. 12.

23 European Commission, Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and next steps, COM(2013)685 final.

24 Radaelli and Fritsch, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5.

25 Claudio Radaelli, “Regulating Rule-Making via Impact Assessment”, Governance (2010), pp. 108 et sqq.

26 OECD Framework, at pp. 41-73.

27 OECD Framework, at p. 54; European Commission, Review of the Commission's Consultation Policy, 2012.

28 E.g. “% of those in the regulatory process that think RIA has improved the quality of regulation”.

29 Administrative procedure adjustment Act (Wet aanpassing bestuursprocesrecht), adopted on 20 December 2012, Stb. 2012, 682; entered into force on 1 January 2013. This Act suppressed the mandatory evaluation clause (former Article 11:1 GALA). The reason for scrapping the provision can be found in the following document from the Dutch parliamentary history: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Nota van Wijziging, Wijziging van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht en aanverwante wetten met het oog op enige verbeteringen en vereenvoudigingen van het bestuursprocesrecht (Wet aanpassing bestuursprocesrecht), 32 450, nr 8 (reprint), 17 August 2011, p. 63.

30 See e.g., OECD, Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Regulatory Policy and Governance, Paris 2012.

31 “The Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation of the OECD in the light of experience with the General Administrative Law Act: a pilot study”, supra note 7, at p. 30.

32 Coglianese, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5, at p. 51.

33 “The Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation of the OECD in the light of experience with the General Administrative Law Act: a pilot study”, supra note 7, at p. 14.

34 European Commission, Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2009)92.

35 Daniel Walters, “Improving Regulatory Processes Around the World”, RegBlog, 26 August 2014.

36 Radaelli, Claudio, “Measuring Policy Learning Across Europe: Regulatory Impact Assessment in Comparative Perspective”, European Research Institute (University of Birmingham), 2007;Google Scholar Radaelli, Claudio, “Desperately Seeking Regulatory Impact Assessments: Diary of a Reflective Researcher”, 15 Evaluation (2009), pp. 31 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Coglianese, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5, at p. 38.

38 Coglianese, “Measuring Regulatory Performance”, supra note 5, at p. 31.

39 OECD Framework, at p. 12.

40 Walters, “Improving Regulatory Processes Around the World”, supra note 36.