Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T00:33:01.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective Law from a Regulatory and Administrative Law Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2018

Maria DE BENEDETTO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of effective law has been studied in many fields of research, such as philosophy and sociology of law, law and economics, public policy and behavioural sciences. This article aims to treat it as a genuine administrative law issue which is currently having a significant impact on administrative procedures, especially affecting the way in which rules are adopted and implemented. Furthermore, the article attempts to reconcile conflicting views in existing literature on the meaning of effective law and on which factors lead to effectiveness by proposing an integrated approach: starting from a regulatory perspective it considers both traditional determinants of effectiveness, ie compliance and enforcement, as well as the emerging aspect of outcomes, focused on the idea that a rule can be defined as effective when its desired effects have been achieved and the public interest which justifies the rule has been safeguarded without producing unwanted or disfunctional consequences.

Far from being simply a decisional problem for institutions (arising in legislative, regulatory and administrative procedures), effectiveness calls for a “steering administration” and represents a criterion for decision-making, since expected effectiveness can be used in the logic of “whether” and “how” institutions should arrive at decisions.

Type
Symposium on Effective Law and Regulation
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 9 , Issue 3: Symposium on Effective Law and Regulation , September 2018 , pp. 391 - 415
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Università Roma Tre.

References

1 Rangeon, F, “Réflexions sur l’effectivité du droit” in Curapp, Les usages sociaux du droit (Colloque, Amiens, 12 May 1989, Presses Universitaire de France) Vol 1, 126 Google Scholar.

2 Which consists of clarity, accessibility and predictability of rules, see d’Etat, Conseil, Rapport public 2006 – Sécurité juridique et complexité du droit (La Documentation française 2006)Google Scholar.

3 On this point, see Williamson, OE, “Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations” (1979) 22(2) Journal of Law and Economics 233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 242: “Governance structures which attenuate opportunism and otherwise infuse confidence are evidently needed”.

4 On this aspect, see World Bank, Doing Business 2018, Reforming to Create Jobs (2018) 11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “economic activity benefits from clear and coherent rules: rules that set out and clarify property rights and facilitate the resolution of disputes [...]. Such rules are much more effective in shaping the incentives of economic agents in ways that promote growth and development where they are reasonably efficient in design, are transparent and accessible to those for whom they are intended and can be implemented at a reasonable cost”.

5 On this point see Cotterell, RBM, The Sociology of Law (Butterworths 1992) 59 Google Scholar onwards, where “prerequisites for effective legislation” are mentioned. On effective legislation, see Mousmouti, M, “Operationalising Quality of Legislation through the Effectiveness Test” (2014) Legisprudence 191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 On this point see Alcott, A, “The effectiveness of law” (1981) 15(2) Valparaiso University Law Review 229 Google Scholar, especially at 230 where he mentions the relevance of customary law for developing countries.

7 See, on this point, the French Conseil d’État, Le droit souple (Le rapports de le Conseil d’État, Rapport 2013).

8 See C Coglianese, Measuring Regulatory Performance. Evaluating the impact of regulation and regulatory policy (OECD Expert Paper No 1, 2012) 8: “Regulation can refer either to individual rules or collections of rules”.

9 OECD, Report on Regulatory Reform (1997).

10 See De Benedetto, M, Martelli, M and Rangone, N, La qualità delle regole (Il Mulino 2011) 12–13 Google Scholar.

11 See Coglianese, C and Kagan, R (eds), Regulation and Regulatory Processes (Ashgate 2007)Google Scholar xi; on this point, see Black, J, “Enrolling Actors in Regulatory Systems: Examples from Uk Financial Service Regulation” (2003) 1 Public Law 63, 69 Google Scholar.

12 See Baldwin, R, Rules and Government (Clarendon Press 1995)Google Scholar especially at 142 (“making rules work”).

13 On this point, see Bobbio, N, “Law and force” (1965) 49(3) The Monist 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ross, A, On Law and Justice (University of California Press 1959) 75 Google Scholar: the assertion that a law is valid at the present time is “a prediction to the effect that D under certain conditions will be taken as the basis for decisions in future legal disputes”.

15 Weck, S, “Local Economic Development in Area-Based Urban Regeneration in Germany” (2009) 24(6–7) Local Economy 523, 533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hohmann, RP, Regenerating Deprived Urban Areas. A Cross National analysis of area-based initiatives (Policy Press 2013) 138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 See Friedman, LM, The Legal System. A Social Science Perspective (Russel Sage 1975) 18 Google Scholar: “a basic legal function is to offer machinery and a place where people can go to resolve their conflicts and settle their disputes”.

17 On this point see Ross, supra, note 14, 38: “[...] valid law means both an order which is in fact effective and an order which possesses ‘binding force’ derived from a priori principles; law is at the same time something factual in the world of reality and something valid in the world of ideas”.

18 On this aspect see, S Romano, The Legal Order (translated by Mariano Croce, Routledge 2017). See also H Kelsen, Principles of International Law (third printing 1959), especially 212 (“the boundaries of the State: the principle of effectiveness”) and 414: “The principle of legitimacy is restricted by the principle of effectiveness”.

19 On this point, see Kelsen, H, General Theory of Law and State (Harvard University Press 1945) 60 Google Scholar onwards, where he analysed the “secondary norm”: “[…] the legal norm is split into two separate norms, two ‘ought’ statements: one to the effect that a certain individual ‘ought’ to observe certain conduct, and one to the effect that another individual ought to execute a sanction in case the first norm is violated”. See also Olivecrona, K, Law as Fact (Oxford University Press 1939)Google Scholar especially 130 onwards where he distinguished between primary and secondary rules (“the primary rules are those which lay down rights and duties for citizens […] The secondary rules are those concerning sanctions to be applied when the primary rules are violated”). See, finally, Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 97–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: secondary rules “confer the power to make them ‘rules of adjudication’ [...] They provide the centralized official ‘sanctions’ of the system”.

20 See Olivecrona, supra, note 19, especially 136 (“the necessity of organized force”).

21 Lascoumes, P and Serverin, E, “Théories et pratiques de l’effectivité du droit” (1986) 2 Droit et société 101, 102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “La séparation du juridique et du social a produit en même temps la nécessité de ‘penser’ l'écart par l’intermédiaire de la philosophie du droit, puis de la sociologie juridique”.

22 On this point, see Pressman, JL and Wildavsky, A, Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation (3rd edn, University of California Press 1984) xxiii Google Scholar: “Implementation, then, is the ability to forge subsequent links in the causal chain so as to obtain the desired results”.

23 See Becker, GS, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach” (1968) 76 The Journal of Political Economy 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Gunningham, N, “Compliance, Deterrence and Beyond” in L Paddock (ed), Compliance and Enforcement in Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2015)Google Scholar.

25 See Tyler, TR, Why People Obey the Law (Yale University Press 1990)Google Scholar and Scholz, JT, “Enforcement policy and corporate misconduct: the changing perspective of deterrence theory” (1997) 60(3) Law and Contemporary Problems 253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On this point, see also Johnstone, R and Sarre, R (eds), Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance (Australian Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Series No 57 2004)Google Scholar. See, finally, Heyes, AG, “Making things stick: enforcement and compliance” (1998) 14(4) Oxford Review of Economic Policy 50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Kirchler, E et al, “Combining Psychology and Economics in the Analysis of Compliance: From Enforcement to Cooperation” (2012) Tulane Economics Working Paper Series No 1212 Google Scholar.

26 Kagan, RA, “Understanding Regulatory Enforcement” (1989) 11 Law and Policy 89, 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 On this point see Dari-Mattiacci, G and De Geest, G, “The rise of carrots and the decline of sticks” (2013) 80(1) University of Chicago Law Review 341, 346 Google Scholar; regarding corruption, see Rose-Ackerman, S, Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform (Cambridge University Press 1999) 78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See Scholz, JT, “Voluntary compliance and regulatory enforcement” (1984) 6 Law and Policy 385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “enforcement strategy that potentially can reduce both enforcement and compliance costs by encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation between agencies and regulated firms”.

29 See C Hodges, “Corporate Behaviour: Enforcement, Support or Ethical Culture?” (28 April 2015) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No 19/2015 and Hodges, C and Steinholtz, R, Ethical Business Practice and Regulation. A Behavioural and Values-Based Approach to Compliance and Enforcement (Hart 2017)Google Scholar. See, among others, Thaler, RH and Sunstein, CR, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press 2008)Google Scholar; Baldwin, R, “From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree” (2014) 77(6) The Modern Law Review 831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alemanno, A and Sibony, A-L (eds), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective (Hart 2015)Google Scholar; Jolls, C, Sunstein, CR and Thaler, R, “A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics” (1998) 50 Stanford Law Review 1471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 C Coglianese, supra, note 8, 8: “Regulation is designed to work according to three main steps: 1. Regulation [...] 2. The behaviour of individuals or entities targeted or affected by regulation [...] 3. Outcomes […]”.

31 On this point, see Friedman, LM, Impact. How Law Affects Behaviour (Harvard University Press 2016) 2 Google Scholar: “True, not too many studies explicitly label themselves ‘impact studies’ And there are only a few general discussion of impact, in one context or another”.

32 ibid, 249.

33 N Rangone, “Making Law Effective Behavioural Insights into Compliance”, in this issue, defines the first type “formal” effectiveness and the second “substantial” effectiveness. On the “importance of rules and rule designs in producing desired results”, see Baldwin, supra, note 12, 142.

34 Boudon, R, Effets pervers et ordre social (Puf 1977)Google Scholar.

35 On this aspect, Leroy, Y, “La notion d’effectivité du droit” (2011) 79(3) Droit et societé 715, 731 Google Scholar.

36 See Ogus, A, “Corruption and regulatory structures” (2004) 26 Law & Policy 329, 336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Carbonnier, J, “Effectivité et ineffectivité de la règle de droit” (2007) 57(2)Google Scholar L’année sociologique: “Le droit dogmatique considère qu’il y a règle de droit véritable dès qu’un texte émanant de l’organe constitutionellement compétent a été régulièrement promulgué. Peu importe que ce texte ne soit pas effectivement appliqué; l’appliquer est une tâche de gouvernants”.

38 If oriented to predict the effect of law “without analysing what the law requires people to do”, Cooter, R, The Two Enterprises of Law and Economics: An Introduction to Its History and Philosophy (2015) 3 Google Scholar: “doctrinal studies concern the content of law, not the consequences”.

39 ibid.

40 Craig, P, EU Administrative Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “Administrative law principles have also been shaped by a principle of effectiveness. This background principle has been influential in many areas of EU law”.

41 See, in the context of the German “New Administrative Law Science” (NeueVerwaltungrechtswissenschaft), Hoffmann-Riem, W, “The potential impact of social sciences on administrative law” in M Ruffert (ed), The Transformation of Administrative Law in Europe/La mutation du droit administratif en Europe (Sellier 2007) 214 Google Scholar.

42 ibid, 213.

43 Herweijer, M, “Inquiries into the quality of administrative decision-making” in KJ de Graaf et al (eds), Quality of Decision-Making in Public Law. Studies in Administrative Decision-Making in the Netherlands (Europa Law Publishing 2007) 15 Google Scholar.

44 On this point see extensive references below, in section IV.3.a.

45 Ayres, I and Braithwaite, J, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford University Press 1992) 5 Google Scholar: “Responsive regulation is not a clearly defined program or a set of prescriptions concerning the best way to regulate. On the contrary, the best strategy is shown to depend on context, regulatory culture, and history”. See also Baldwin, R and Black, J, “Really responsive regulation” (2008) 71(1) The Modern Law Review 59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 On this point, see the references in note 29.

47 On this point see Hood, C, Rothstein, H and Baldwin, R, The Government of Risk. Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes (Oxford University Press 2001)Google Scholar; Sparrow, MK, The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems, and Managing Compliance (The Brookings Institution 2000)Google Scholar; Black, J and Baldwin, R, “Really responsive risk-based regulation” (2010) 32(2) Law and Policy 181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, J, “The Role of Risk in Regulatory Processes” in R Baldwin, M Cave and M Lodge (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Regulation (Oxford University Press 2010) 302 Google Scholar.

48 “Primary” and “secondary” rules (or norms) do not have the same content in different theories and it could be possible to generate risks of ambiguity, see note 19.

49 On the relationship between commands, prohibitions and permissions see Bentham, J, Collected Works, Vol 2, Principles of Legislation (ed by HLA Hart, Athlone Press 1945) in particular 111 Google Scholar.

50 On compliance, see Baldwin, R, Cave, M and Lodge, M, Understanding Regulation. Theories, Strategies and Practice (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 236 Google Scholar ff. See also Tyler, supra, note 25. See Scholz, supra, note 28, 385 and Teubner, G, “After Legal Instrumentalism? Strategic Model of Post-Regulatory Law” in G Teubner (ed), Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (Walter de Gruyter 1988) 311 Google Scholar: “the law is ineffective because it creates no change in behavior”.

51 Nuijten, M and Anders, G (eds), Corruption and the Secret of law. A Legal Anthropological Perspective (Ashgate Publishing 2007) 12 Google Scholar: “the possibility of its trangression or perversion is always already inscribed into the law as hidden possibility. This, then, is the secret of law”.

52 See Kelsen, supra, note 19, 255.

53 On enforcement, Stigler, GJ, “The optimum enforcement of law” in GS Becker and WM Landes (eds), Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment (NBER 1974) 55 Google Scholar: “All prescriptions of behaviour for individuals require enforcement”. See also Hawkins, K and Thomas, JM, Enforcing Regulation (Kluwer-Nijhoff 1984); Voermans, W, Motive-based Enforcement (Working Paper Leiden University 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, now in Mader, L and Kabyshev, S (eds), Regulatory Reform. Implementation and Compliance (Nomos 2014) 41 Google Scholar. See also OECD Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance (Paris 2000)Google Scholar and Scholz, supra, note 25, 254; Eisenberg, A, “Expressive Enforcement” (2014) UCLA Law Review 858 Google Scholar. See, finally, GP Miller, An Economic Analysis of Effective Compliance Programs (2014 New York University Law and Economics Working Papers, Paper 396).

54 Flückiger, A, “Le droit administratif en mutation: l'émergence d’un principe d’efficacité” (2001) Revue de droit administratif et fiscal 93, 95 Google Scholar.

55 Carbonnier, supra, note 37, 6–7: “L’effectivité de la loi qui consacre une liberté d’agir se situe non dans l’action, mais dans la liberté même, c’est-à-dire dans le pouvoir de choisir l’inaction aussi bien que l’action”.

56 Flückiger, supra, note 54, 95.

57 Weil, D et al, “Targeted Transparency” (2009) 38 Public Manager 22, 23 Google Scholar.

58 On this point, see Rangone, Nicoletta, “A behavioural approach to administrative corruption prevention” in A Cerillo-I-Martìnez and J Sole Ponce (eds), Preventing Corruption and Promoting Good Government and Public Integrity (Bruylant 2017) 85–87 Google Scholar.

59 Vedel, G, “Le hasard et la nécessité” (1989) 50 Pouvoirs 15, 27 Google Scholar: “[…] si le droit dit ‘ce qu’il faut faire’ il ne peut pas dire ‘ce qu’on en fera’”.

60 Alcott, supra, note 6, 235.

61 Mayntz, R, “Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm” in J Kooiman (ed), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions (Sage 1993) 13 Google Scholar.

62 Carbonnier, supra, note 37, 15–16.

63 See Leroy, supra, note 35, 718; see also Lascoumes, P, “Effectivité” in A-J Arnaud (ed), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit (LGDJ 1993) 217 Google Scholar.

64 Carbonnier, supra, note 37, 13–14: “quel est le taux maximum d’ineffectivité qui est compatible avec l’existence d’une règle de droit”.

65 Alcott, supra, note 6, 229.

66 Council Recommendation 2009/C 296/02 on Smoke-free Environments (2009).

67 Commission Staff Working Report, Document SWD 56 final/2 on the implementation of the Council Recommendation of 30 November 2009 on Smoke-free Environments (2013).

68 ibid.

69 European Parliament and the Council Directive 2014/40/EU on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC Text with EEA relevance (2014).

70 On the dissociation between “legal validity [and] mere enactment” see Pino, G, “The place of legal positivism in contemporary constitutional states” (1999) 18(5) Law and Philosophy – Special Issue: Neil MacCormick (ed), Law, Facts, and Values 513, 535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 On this point see also Clark, CE, “The function of law in a democratic society” (1942) 9 University of Chicago Law Review 393, 400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “The function of law in a democracy is not greatly different from its function in an autocracy or a dictatorship. Of course the content of law is as different as are the diverse social ideas of the two systems”.

72 On this point see Tyler, supra, note 25, 4: “normative commitment through legitimacy means obeying a law because one feels that the authority enforcing the law has the right to dictate behavior” and Tyler, TR, “The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary Deference to Authorities” (1997) 1(4) Personality and Social Psychology Review 323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 See N Leff, “Economic Development Through Bureaucratic Corruption” (1964) November, The American Behavioral Scientist 8, where corruption itself is described as an “extra-legal institution used by individuals or groups to gain influence over the action of the bureaucracy”. Criminal organisations and mafia groups have been defined as “extra-legal protectors or quasi-law enforcers”: Wang, P, “Organised crime in a transitional economy: the resurgence of the criminal underworld in contemporary China” in G Barak (ed), The Routledge International Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful (Routledge 2015) 404 Google Scholar.

74 Barnett, RE, “Constitutional Legitimacy” (2003) Columbia Law Review 103, 111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Rangeon, supra, note 1, 142.

76 See Ogus, supra, note 36, 330–331.

77 On this point, see Tyler, TR, “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law” (2003) 30 Crime and Justice 283, 311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar:

“Legitimacy has an important role in shaping compliance with the law. Those members of the public who feel that the law is legitimate and ought to be obeyed, and who have institutional trust in legal authorities, are more likely to follow the law”.

78 Scholz, supra, note 28. See also Hawkins, K, “Bargain and bluff: compliance strategy and deterrence in the enforcement of regulation” (1983) 5(1) Law and Policy Quarterly 35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 See Williamson, supra, note 3, 242: “Governance structures which attenuate opportunism and otherwise infuse confidence are evidently needed”. See also Polinsky, A Mitchell and Shavell, S, “Enforcement Costs and the Optimal Magnitude and Probability of Fines” (1992) 35(1) The Journal of Law & Economics 133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Tyler, supra, note 25.

81 Hart, supra, note 19, especially at 258, where he mentions the conformity of laws “with substantive moral values or principles”; see also Koslowski, P, Principles of Ethical Economy (Kluwer Academic 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 On this point see Hodges, supra, note 29, and Hodges and Steinholtz, supra, note 29.

83 On “procedural injustice” as a source of non compliance see Braithwaite, J, Improving Compliance: Strategies and Practical Applications in OECD Countries (OECD 1993) 9 Google Scholar. See also Tyler, supra, note 77, 283.

84 Tyler, supra, note 72. See also Cooter, R, “Expressive Law and Economics” (1998) 27 Journal of Legal Studies 585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sunstein, CR, “On the expressive function of law” (1996) 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 On this aspect see Buchanan, JM, “Ethical rules, expected values and large numbers” (1965) LXXVI(1) Ethics 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 See Becker, supra, note 23, 169. For further aspects see Ogus, supra, note 36, 329; see also Lambsdorff, JG, “Corruption and rent-seeking” (2002) 113 Public Choice 97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See finally Hawkins and Thomas, supra, note 53.

87 Becker, supra, note 23, 169.

88 On this topic, see N Rangone, “Making Law Effective: Behavioural Insigths into Compliance”, in this issue. See also Gino, F, “Why the US Government Is Embracing Behavioural Sciences” (2015) Harvard Business Review September 18 Google Scholar.

89 On this point see Jolls, Sunstein and Thaler, supra, note 29; see also Akerlof, GA and Shille, RJ, Animal Spirits. How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism (Princeton University Press 2009)Google Scholar.

90 On this point see Rangone, N, “Tools for effective law: a focus on nudge and empowerment” (2017) 24 Concorrenza e Mercato 195 Google Scholar. See also M De Benedetto, “Understanding and preventing corruption: a regulatory approach” in Cerillo-I-Martìnez and Ponce, supra, note 58, 63 et sqq.

91 The idea has been mentioned in Lind, E Allan and Arndt, C, “Perceived Fairness and Regulatory Policy” OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers No 6 (OECD 2016) 3 Google Scholar.

92 Friedman, supra, note 31, 240.

93 As in the case of the 2011 Dutch Government programme “Inspection Holiday” which “aimed at strongly reducing the burden of inspections for (a) low-risk and (b) higher-risk but consistently compliant businesses (the equivalent of what is called in the UK ‘earned recognition’)”, see Blanc, F, Inspection Reforms: Why, How and with what Results (Oecd 2012) 41.Google Scholar

94 Kagan, supra, note 26, 91.

95 On this point see Bardach, E and Kagan, RA, Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness (Transaction Publishers 2010) 124 Google Scholar.

96 Baldwin, Cave and Lodge, supra, note 50, 232.

97 See HM Revenue & Customs, General Anti-Abuse Rule Guidance (28 March 2018) B3.1: “The primary policy objective of the GAAR is to deter taxpayers from entering into abusive arrangements, and to deter would-be promoters from promoting such arrangements”.

98 In general, see Hodges, C, Ethical Business Regulation: Understanding the Evidence (Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Better Regulation Delivery Office February 2016) 9 Google Scholar: “Where actions are immoral, or accountability as described above has not been observed, a proportionate response should be made. Enforcement policies should generally avoid the concept of deterrence, since it has limited effect on behaviour, conflicts with a learning-based performance culture, and is undemocratic”.

99 The idea is referred to corruption, see Gardiner, JA and Lyman, TR, “The logic of corruption control” in AJ Heidenheimer, M Johnston and VT LeVine (eds), Political Corruption. A Handbook (Transaction Publishers 1993) 833 Google Scholar.

100 OECD, Cutting Red Tape – National Strategies for Administrative Simplification (2006).

101 On this point, HM Treasury, Hampton Report, Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement (March 2005).

102 See Osborne, D and Gaebler, T, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Addison Wesley 1992)Google Scholar and the Report From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less. Report of the National Performance Review (1993).

103 OMB, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Disclosure and Simplification as Regulatory Tools (2010) 9 Google Scholar. On this point see the Paperwork Reduction Act 1980, US Code 44, ch 35.

104 ibid, 12.

105 Davis, KC, Discretionary Justice. A Preliminary Inquiry (Greenwood Press 1980) 217 Google Scholar.

106 ibid, 52.

107 Wittberg, L, “Can Communication Activities Improve Compliance?” in H Elffers, W Huisman and P Verboon (eds), Managing and Maintaining Compliance. Closing the gap between science and practice (Boom Legal Publishers 2006) 25 Google Scholar.

108 Friedman, supra, note 31, 33.

109 On feedback see Watzlawick, P, Bavelas, J Beavin and Jackson, DD, Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes (Paperback 2011) 12 Google Scholar.

110 On this point see Mehrabian, A, Nonverbal Communication (Aldine Transaction 1972)Google Scholar.

111 See Eisenberg, supra, note 53, 860. See also Lessig, L, “The Regulation of Social Meaning” (1995) 62 University of Chicago Law Review 943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 See Pound, R, “Law in books and law in action” (1910) 44 American Law Review 12 Google Scholar.

113 See Twining, W and Miers, D, How to Do Things with Rules (Cambridge University Press 2010) 90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114 See Meltsner, AJ, Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy (University of California Press 1976) 255 Google Scholar: “Effective communication can lead to promotion or demotion, to acceptance or rejection of one’s ideas, to success or failure”.

115 On this point see Nozick, R, “Coercion” in S Morgenbesser, P Suppes and M White (eds), Philosophy, Science, and Method. Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel (St Martin’s Press 1969) 440 Google Scholar.

116 Stigler, supra, note 53, 56.

117 OECD, Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections (OECD 2014) 12 Google Scholar: “enforcement will be taken in its broad meaning, covering all activities of state structures (or structures delegated by the state) aimed at promoting compliance and reaching regulations’ outcomes […]. These activities may include: information, guidance and prevention; data collection and analysis; inspections; enforcement actions in the narrower sense, ie warnings, improvement notices, fines, prosecutions etc. To distinguish the two meanings of enforcement, ‘regulatory enforcement’ will refer to the broad understanding, and ‘enforcement actions’ to the narrower sense”.

118 On this point see Nozick, supra, note 115.

119 Olivecrona, supra, note 19, 140 onwards.

120 On this point, see Zimring, FE and Hawkins, GJ, Deterrence. The Legal Threat in Crime Control (University of Chicago Press 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Paternoster, R, “The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues” (1987) Justice Quarterly 173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 On this point see Tyler, supra, note 77, in particular 290, where long-term compliance is described as “more strongly voluntary in character”

122 Stigler, supra, note 53, 56.

123 Olivecrona, supra, note 19, 123 et sqq.

124 Braithwaite, J, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (Oxford University Press 2002) 29 Google Scholar: “responsive regulation is that governments should be responsive to the conduct of those they seek to regulate in deciding whether a more or less interventionist response is needed”. See also Baldwin and Black, supra, note 45, 62: “The essence of ‘responsive regulation’ is a ‘tit for tat’ approach in which regulators enforce in the first instance by compliance strategies, such as persuasion and education, but apply more punitive deterrent responses (escalating up a pyramid of such responses) when the regulated firm fails to behave as desired”.

125 Tyler, supra, note 25, 19.

126 Blanc, supra, note 93, 72.

127 On this point, see Ernest-Jones, M, Nettle, D and Bateson, M, “Effects of Eye Images on Everyday Cooperative Behavior: A Field Experiment” (2011) 32 Evolution and Human Behavior 172, 173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 ibid: “there have been many demonstrations that the physical presence of other people in the room, or other non-verbal cues of proximity or visibility, produces more cooperative behaviour”.

129 See Hampton Report, supra, note 101.

130 See Braithwaite, J, Improving Compliance: Strategies and Practical Applications in OECD Countries (OECD 1993) 9 Google Scholar. See also Tyler, supra, note 77, 283.

131 On this point see Bardach and Kagan, supra, note 95, 123.

132 See Blanc, supra, note 93. See also OECD, Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, supra, note 117, 11.

133 On this point see De Benedetto, M, “Corruption and controls” (2015) 17(4) European Journal of Law Reform 479, 488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “Controls have a hybrid nature: not only are they a way to combat or prevent corruption but also they are real occasions for corrupt transactions”.

134 See Baldwin, Cave and Lodge, supra, note 50, 281.

135 See OECD, Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, supra, note 117.

136 On this point, see Rangone, supra, note 58, 69.

137 On this point see Coglianese, C, “Empirical Analysis and Administrative Law” (2002) University of Illinois Law Review 1111, 1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

138 Landes, WM, “Optimal Sanctions for Antitrust Violations” (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 Friedman, supra, note 16, 71–72.

140 See Gneezy, U and Rustichini, A, “A Fine Is a Price” (2000) 29(1) The Journal of Legal Studies 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

141 See Garoupa, N and Klerman, D, “Corruption and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions” (2004) 24 International Review of Law and Economics 219, 220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142 See Becker, GS and Stigler, GJ, “Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers” (1974) 3(1) The Journal of Legal Studies 1, 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 On this point see Gardiner and Lyman, supra, note 99, 837; Ogus, supra, note 36, 337.

144 Lipsky, M, Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (Russell Sage Foundation 1980)Google Scholar.

145 Stiglitz, JE, “Regulation and Failure” in D Moss and J Cisternino (eds), New Perspectives on Regulation (The Tobin Project, 2009) 11 Google Scholar: “Policy interventions should be designed to make less likely the occurrence of actions that generate significant negative spillovers, or externalities”.

146 European Commission, Communication COM/2010/0543 final on Smart Regulation in the European Union (2010) 3. See also Baldwin, R, “Is better regulation smarter regulation?” (2015) Public Law 485 Google Scholar.

147 OECD, Overcoming Barriers to Administrative Simplification Strategies: Guidance for Policy Makers (2009) 44 Google Scholar. See also OECD, Reccomendation on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation (1995) and The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform; Synthesis (1997) 8.

148 Ogus, A, Regulation. Legal Form and Economic Theory (Clarendon Press 1994) 90 Google Scholar. See also Hawkins and Thomas, supra, note 53, 173.

149 Baldwin, Cave and Lodge, supra, note 50, 38.

150 OECD, Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure, supra, note 53. See also Voermans, supra, note 53, 41.

151 Coglianese, supra, note 8, 9.

152 Xantaki, H, “Quality of legislation: an achievable universal concept or a utopian pursuit?” in M Tavares Almeida (ed), Quality of Legislation (Nomos 2011) 81 Google Scholar. See also Weatherill, S, “The challenge of better regulation” in S Weatherill (ed), Better Regulation (Hart 2007) 19 Google Scholar.

153 See European Commission, Communication COM(2012) 746 final on EU Regulatory fitness (2012) 3.

154 ibid, 11.

155 De Benedetto, M, “Maintenance of Rules” in U Karpen and H Xantaki (eds), Legislation and Legisprudence in Europe. A Comprehensive Guide (Hart 2017) 215 Google Scholar.

156 On this point, see Radaelli, C and De Francesco, F, Regulatory Quality in Europe, Concepts, Measures, and Policy Processes (Manchester University Press 2007)Google Scholar. See also Donelan, E, “Progress and Challenges in Selected OECD and EU Countries in Developing and Using Regulatory Impact Assessement (RIA)” in J-B Auby and T Perroud, Regulatory Impact Assessment (Global Law Press 2013) 125 Google Scholar.

157 See Radaelli, C et al, “Comparing the content of regulatory impact assessments in the UK and the EU” (2013) 33(6) Public Money & Management 445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

158 An interesting comparison is available in the Australian Government, Productivity Commission Research Report, Identifying and Evaluating Regulation Reforms, Appendix K, How do different countries manage regulation? (December 2011).

159 See Staronova, K, “Regulatory Impact Assessment: Formal Institutionalization and Practice” (2010) 30(1) Journal of Public Policy 117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

160 The loi constitutionelle 23 Juillet 2008, art 24 established that: “Le Parlement vote les lois, contrôle l’action du Gouvernement et évalue les politiques publiques”.

161 See, for example, Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, art 35 (Designation and independence of regulatory authorities), “5. In order to protect the independence of the regulatory authority, Member States shall in particular ensure that: (a) the regulatory authority can take autonomous decisions, independently from any political body, and has separate annual budget allocations, with autonomy in the implementation of the allocated budget, and adequate human and financial resources to carry out its duties”.

162 The United Nations and the Council of Europe anti-corruption conventions established “criteria for effective specialised anti-corruption bodies”: they should be characterised by independence, specialisation, adequate training and resources. On this point see also OECD, Specialised Anti-Corruption Institutions. Review of Models (OECD 2008) 5 Google Scholar.

163 OECD, Backgroud Document on Oversight Bodies for Regulatory Reform (OECD 2007) 2 Google Scholar: the “whole-of-government approach for regulatory policy […] requires coordination of different institutions involved at different levels of government and the commitment to assign adequate resources to them”.

164 See Knight, FH, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Beard Books 2002) 20 Google Scholar, where he distinguished between uncertainty and risk by defining risk “proper” as “measurable uncertainty”.

165 In the more general framework of the present article, on this point it would also be important to refer to the huge literature on risk regulation. Among other titles, see Beck, U, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (Sage 1986)Google Scholar. A health perspective characterises Graham, JD, Green, LC and Roberts, MJ, In Search of Safety. Chemicals and Cancer Risk (Harvard University Press 1991)Google Scholar. See also Breyer, S, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Towards Effective Risk Regulation (Harvard University Press 1993)Google Scholar; Hood, Rothstein and Baldwin, supra, note 47; Sunstein, CR, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment (Cambridge University Press 2002)Google Scholar; Black, J, “The emergence of risk-based regulation and the new public management in the United Kingdom” (2005) Public Law 512 Google Scholar. See, finally OECD, Risk and Regulation: Improving the Governance of Risk (Oecd Publishing 2010).Google Scholar

166 See De Benedetto, M, “Competition enforcement: a look at inspections” in P Nihoul and T Skoczny (eds), Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings (Edward Elgar 2015) 145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Auby, J-B, “Le pouvoirs d’inspections de l’Union européenne” (2006) 42(1) Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 131 Google Scholar and Bagby, JW, “Administrative investigations: preserving a reasonable balance between agency powers and target rights” (1985) 23(3) American Business Law Journal 319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 See, in general, on this topic, Stigler, GJ, “The Economics of Information” (1961) 69(3) Journal of Political Economy 213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

168 See Luhmann, N, Legitimation durch Verfahren (Suhrkamp 1983)Google Scholar.

169 Wollmann, H, “Utilization of Evaluation Results in Policy-Making and Administration: A Challenge to Political Science Research” (2016) 16(3) Croatian and Comparative Public Administration 433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

170 Supra, note 153, 4.

171 See Craig, P, Administrative Law (Sweet & Maxwell 2008) 111 Google Scholar: “measuring institutional effectiveness is always difficult”.

172 Groeneveld, S and Van de Walle, S, “New steering instruments: trend in public sector practice and scholarship” in S Groeneveld and S Van de Walle (eds), New Steering Concepts in Public Management (Emerald 2011) 212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

173 See Luhmann, N, “Limits of steering” (1997) 14(1) Theory, Culture & Society 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “In the politics of society the term ‘steering’ is still much discussed. Uncertainty about the capability to influence the future leads to appeals for something to be done”.

174 Pierre, J and Peters, B Guy, Governance, Politics and the State (Macmillan 2000) 1 Google Scholar: “the capacity of government to make and implement policy”.

175 Bogason, P, “Postmodernism and American Public Administration in the 1990s” (2001) 33(2) Administration & Society 165, 167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “how to make the public sector work better”. See also Rhodes, RAW, “The New Governance: Governing without Government” (1996) 44 Political Studies 652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

176 OECD, Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance (2005) 1 Google Scholar: “Isolated efforts cannot take the place of a coherent, whole-of-government approach [...] ‘Regulatory quality and performance’ captures the dynamic, ongoing whole-of-government approach to implementation”.

177 On the problem of “lack of consistency, coordination and coherence between agencies – lack of uniform guidelines and approaches between inspectors”, see Blanc, supra, note 93, 2.

178 On this point see Coglianese, supra, note 137, 1113. See also Cassese, S, “New paths for administrative law: A manifesto” (2012) 10(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “a new administrative law is developing, due to a process of change, modernization, and reform […] This new administrative law is – in this view – the product of the new role of the state as a promoter, as a facilitator, as a risk regulator, and as the helmsman of economy and society”.

179 See Hoffmann-Riem, supra, note 41, 214.

180 See also Voßkuhle, A and Wischmeyer, T, “The NeueVerwaltungrechtswissenschaft against the backdrop of traditional administrative law scholarship in Germany”, in S Rose-Ackerman, PL Lindseth and B Emerson (eds), Comparative Administrative Law (2nd edn, Edwar Elgar 2017) 93 Google Scholar.

181 See Cassese, supra, note 178, 603.

182 Hawkins, K, Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-making in a Regulatory Agency (Oxford University Press, 2001) 39 Google Scholar.

183 Ayres and Braithwaite, supra, note 45, 101: “a requirement for breaking out of the sterile contest between deregulation and stronger regulation is innovation in the regulatory design”.

184 On this point see Diver, CS, “The optimal precision of administrative rules” (1983) 93(1) Yale Law Jornal 65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Baldwin, R, “Why rules don’t work” (1990) 53(3) The Modern Law Review 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

185 See De Benedetto, Martelli and Rangone, supra, note 10, p 28. On this point see other references in notes 156–159.

186 ibid, 72.

187 Lipsky, supra, note 144, 13.

188 Blanc, supra, note 93, 72.

189 On this point, see della Cananea, G, Due Process of Law beyond the State. Requirements of administrative procedure (Oxford University Press 2017)Google Scholar.

190 See McCubbins, MD, Noll, RG and Weingast, BR, “Administrative procedures as instruments of political control” (1987) 3(2) Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 243, 244 Google Scholar.

191 On the “analytic management of regulation” see Stewart, RB, “Administrative Law in the Twenty-First Century” (2003) 78(2) New York University Law Review 437, 445 Google Scholar.

192 Coglianese, C, Kilmartin, H and Mendelson, E, “Transparency and public participation in the rulemaking process: recommendations for the new administration” (2009) 77(4) George Washington Law Review 924, 927 Google Scholar.

193 See Scholz, supra, note 25, 264: “Improve Procedural Fairness. […] The perception of fair treatment and due process enhanced compliance even when orders imposed considerable costs”.

194 Stewart, supra, note 191, 445.

195 Supra, note 153.

196 Herweijer, supra, note 43, 15: “to determine whether decisions are effective we need to compare. We might, for example, compare the average speed of cars before and after the introduction of the speed limit”.

197 European Commission, Communication COM(2002) 704 final on Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, 5: consultation “serves a dual purpose by helping to improve the quality of the policy outcome and at the same time enhancing the involvement of interested parties and the public at large”.

198 Coglianese, supra, note 137, 1113.

199 See De Benedetto, supra, note 90, 55.

200 See Mashaw, JL, “Structuring a ‘dense complexity’: accountability and the project of administrative law” (2005) Issues in Legal Scholarship 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

201 Sunstein, CR, After the Rights Revolution. Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Harvard University Press 1990) 103 Google Scholar. On this point see also Stewart, RB, “The Reformation of American Administrative Law” (1975) 88(8) Harvard Law Review 1669, 1713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “[...] comparative overrepresentation of regulated or client interests in the process of agency decision results in a persistent policy bias in favour of these interests”. See also Ogus, supra, note 36, 341 where he argues that the same consultations are occasions to “increase the opportunity for corrupt transactions”.

202 Stewart, supra, note 191, 446.

203 Teubner, supra, note 50, 306.

204 On this point see Osborne and Gaebler, supra, note 102. See also From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, supra, note 102. See finally Osborne, D and Hutchinson, P, The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis (Basic Books 2004)Google Scholar.

205 See OECD, Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure, supra, note 53. See also Hawkins and Thomas, supra, note 53, 7

206 See Hoffmann-Riem, supra, note 41, 241: “the approach to reality and thus to diagnostic and knowledge and above all dealing with the uncertain also has to be ‘learnt’”.

207 In this sense, Beck, supra, note 165, 180: “criteria must be discovered for how the unpredictability of consequences is produced and can be avoided”. See also Pardo, J Esteve, Técnica, riesgo y derecho: tratamiento del riesgo tecnológico en el derecho ambiental (Ariel 1999)Google Scholar.

208 Hoffmann-Riem, supra, note 41, 214.

209 Coglianese, C (ed), Regulatory Breakdown: The Crisis of Confidence in US Regulation (University of Pennsylvania Press 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

210 Beck, supra, note 165, 34: “Therefore, even as conjectures, as threaths to the future, as prognoses, they have and develop a practical relevance to preventive actions […] In the risk society the past loses the power to determine the present. Its place is taken by the future, thus, something non-existent, invented, fictive as the ‘cause’ of current experience and action. We become active today in order to prevent, allievate or take precautions against the problems and crises of tomorrow”.

211 Kickert, WJM, Klijn, E-H and Koppenjan, J, Managing Complex Networks – Strategies for the Public Sector (Sage 1997) 10 Google Scholar and 44 where “coordinating strategies of actors with different goals and preferences” are mentioned. On this aspect see C Coglianese and E Mendelson, “Meta-regulation and self-regulation” in Baldwin, Cave and Lodge, supra, note 47.

212 Rhodes, RAW, “Recovering the Craft of Public Administration” (2016) 76(4) Public Administration Review 638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “it is a question of what works, of what skills fit in a particular context”.

213 Edelman, MJ, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (University of Illinois Press 1985) 181 Google Scholar: “The testing of works and its results remains a testing against tangible results not satisfaction with pipedreams”; see also Stolz, BA, “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: The Role of Symbolic Politics” (2002) 24(3) Law & Policy 269, 270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “The symbolic perspective also assumes that the substance of an act is less important than the audience’s perception or reaction to it. Moreover, at times, whether or not legislation is enacted is less important than the fact that legislation has been introduced”.

214 Dwyer, JP, “The Pathology of Symbolic Legislation” (1990) 17 Ecology Law Quarterly 233, 234 Google Scholar: “The most significant problem with symbolic legislation, however, is not delay; it is the resulting distortions in the regulatory process. Symbolic legislation hobbles the regulatory process by polarizing public discussion in agency proceedings and legislative hearings”.

215 ibid: “By making promises that cannot be kept, and by leaving no middle ground for accommodation, the legislature makes it more difficult to reach a political compromise (either in the agency or the legislature) that would produce a functional regulatory program”.

216 On this aspect see Rose-Ackerman, Lindseth and Emerson, supra, note 180, 1: “The Germans speak of administrative law as ‘concretized’ constitutional law”.

217 Kelsen, supra, note 19, 255.

218 Pound, supra, note 112, 35.