Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:36:13.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact Assessment and the Policy Cycle in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Giacomo Luchetta
Giacomo Luchetta*
Affiliation:
LUISS “Guido Carli” University – Rome and Regulatory Affairs Programme of the Centre for European Policy Studies – Brussels
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the Communication on Smart Regulation issued in October 2010, the European Commissiontried to foster a better management of the whole policy cycle. According to thatCommunication, amending policy proposals must be preceded by an ex-post assessmentof the current situation, allowing “closing the policy cycle”. This paper tries to answer thequestion whether the EU Impact Assessments System is fit to steer and close the policy cycle,and what is the relation between ex-ante IA and ex-post evaluation “on the ground” so far. This is done via a macro and micro analysis, based on scorecard approach and three casestudies, comparing the EU IA system performance with a theoretical benchmark derived from the EU policy document and process. The paper concludes that the EU Impact Assessmentsystem, as it is currently designed and implemented, is not yet fi t to steer and closethe policy cycle. To achieve this goal, all the analytical and empirical layers of the policycycle should be fully dealt with since the ex-ante phase.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 561 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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 Communication from the Commission: “Smart Regulation in the European Union”. COM(2010)543

2 Renda, Andrea, Impact Assessment in the EU – The State of theArt, The Art of the State (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2006)Google Scholar

3 Radaelli, Claudio and Meuwese, Anne, “Better Regulation in Europe: Between Public Management and Regulatory Reform”, 87 Public Administration 2009, pp. 639 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1.

5 Transposition refers to the incorporation of a EU norm in the national/local acquis. Implementation refers to the application of the EU norm, or the national/local norm transposing it, by national/local public administrations.

6 Enforcement refers to prosecution of violations of EU norms, or national/local transposition norms, both vis-à-vis the Member States and third parties.

7 Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, “Final report”, 13th November 2001, available on the Internet at: <http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_report.pdf> (last accessed on 29 October 2012); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Regulatory Policy in OECD Countries:from Intervention to Regulatory Governance, (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2002).Google Scholar

8 European Court of Auditors (ECA), Impact Assessment in the EU Institutions: Do They Support Decision-Making?, 2010, at p. 9.

9 European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2009)92, at p.6. The Commission Legislative Working Programme (CLWP) is a document providing an overview of the most important legislative initiatives which the European Commission plans to put forward in the following year(s). In practice, the CLWP is not a compulsory reference anymore. The decision whether non-CLWP proposals should undergo an IA is taken upon agreement between the SG and the competent DG.

10 The Evaluation Partnership, “Evaluation of the Commission's Impact Assessment System Final Report”, 2007, available on the Internet at <http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/tep_eias_fi nal_report_executive_summary_en.pdf> (last accessed on 29 October 2012), at p. 60.

11 Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Board Report for 2010, SEC(2011)126

12 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at p. 6.

13 ECA, Impact Assessment in the EU Institutions, supra note 8, at p. 36.

14 Source: CEPS EU IA Database. Infra note 19.

15 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at pp. 13–17.

16 EU IA Guidelines, supra note 9, at pp. 45–49.

17 IA Guidelines, supra note 9, at p. 48.

18 Claudio Radaelli, Lorenzo Allio, Andrea Renda and Lorna Schrefler, “How to learn from the international experience: Impact Assessment in the Netherlands. Final Report”, 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20100527/how_to_learn_from_the/f=/vifklgll6miz.pdf> (last accessed on 29 October 2012), at pp. 93–95.

19 The database was created by the Centre for European Policy Studies, under the supervision of Dr. Andrea Renda. The database is currently unpublished, on file with the author. Data are partly reported in Renda, Andrea, Law and Economics in the RIA World, (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2011)Google Scholar. The methodology is similar to that described in Cecot, Caroline, Hahn, Robert, Renda, Andrea and Schrefler, Lorna, “An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU”, 2 Regulatory Governance (2008), pp. 405 et sqq. Google Scholar

20 The term “institution” refers to North's definition of institutions as “humanly devised constraints”. Cf. North, Douglas, Institutions, institutionalchange and economic performance, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 I.a., I refer to Adler and Posner, Radaelli, Renda. Cf. Adler, Matthew and Posner, Eric, “Rethinking Cost-Benefi t Analysis”, 109 The YaleLaw Journal (1999), pp. 165 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, Matthew and Posner, Eric, “Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis when Preferences are Distorted”, 29 Journal of Legal Studies (2000), pp. 1105 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Radaelli et al. Impact Assessment in the Netherlands, supra note 18; Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19. This approach builds also upon the “transaction-cost politics”, cf. the seminal contribution of Williamson and Dixit, such as: Williamson, Oliver, “Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective”, 15 Journal of Law and Economics (1999), pp. 306 et sqq.; CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Dixit, Avinash, The Making of Economic Policy, (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar

22 Epstein, David and O’Halloran, Sharyn, Delegating Powers. A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate power, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

23 This is not a cost for the society, but only for the delegating body.

24 Cf Adler and Posner, supra note 21.

25 Majone, Giandomenico, “Nonmajoritarian Institutions and the Limits of Democratic Governance: A Political Transaction-Cost Approach”, 157 Journal of Institutions and Theoretical Economics 2001, pp. 57 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance”, 2 European Union Politics 2001, pp. 103 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19; McGarity, Thomas, “A Cost-Benefit State”, 50 Administrative Law Review 1998, pp. 7 et sqq. Google Scholar

27 I.a. Arrow, Kenneth et al., “Is there a role for Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation”, 272 Science 1996, pp. 221 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at pp. 2–3.

29 Jabko, Nicolas, “The political foundations of the European regulatory state”, in Jordana, Jacint and Levi-Faur, David (eds) The Politicsof Regulation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar

30 An attempt to measure the effect of regulation, supposedly enhanced through RIA, on economic performarnce has been attempted via OECD Product Market Regulation indicators. Cf. Anita Wölfl , Isabelle Wanner, Tomasz Kozluk and Giuseppe Nicoletti “Ten Years of Product Market Reform in OECD Countries – Insights From a Revised PMR Indicator” OECD Economics Department WorkingPapers No.695 2009.

31 Coglianese, Cary, “Empirical analysis and administrative law”, 4 University of Illinois Law Review 2002, pp. 1111 et sqq. Google Scholar

32 Claudio Radaelli and Fabrizio De Francesco, “Regulatory Impact Assessment, Political Control and the Regulatory State”, Paper delivered to the 4th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, 6 September 2007; Hahn, Robert and PhilipTetlock, , “Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?”, 22 Journal of Economic Perspective 2008, pp. 67 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Radaelli, Claudio and Meuwese, Anne, “Hard Questions, Hard Solutions: proceduralisation through Impact Assessment in the EU”, 33 West European Politics 2010, pp. 136 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Radaelli et al. Impact Assessment in the Netherlands, supra note 21.

34 Jacobs, Scott, Current Trends in Regulatory Impact Analysis: TheChallenges of Mainstreaming RIA into Policy-making, (Washington, DC: Jacobs and Associates, 2006), pp. 31–32 Google Scholar; The Evaluation Partnership, “Evaluation of the Commission Impact Assessment System”, supra note 10, pp. 68–80; European Commission Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at p. 7.

35 Jacobs, Current Trends in RIA, supra note 34.

36 See supra note 19.

37 Claire Dunlop Claudio Radaelli and Duncan Russell ‘What's an Impact Assessment to do? Ideas, Instruments and the Capabilities- Expectations Gap’ Paper presented and the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshop Munster, Germany, 2010.

38 In this section, aspects of case studies have been reported only when relevant to support specific points of the analysis. In a longer version, on file with the author, the whole policy cycle of the case studies was analysed.

39 Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007–2013), OJ 2006 L412/1.

40 Communication from the Commission: Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. COM(2006)216.

41 Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Community, OJ 2007 L171/32; Regulation (EC) No 544/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/ EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, OJ 2009 L167/12.

42 Milgrom, Paul and Roberts, John, Economia, Organizzazione e Management(Economics, Organisation and Management), (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994), at p. 207.Google Scholar

43 Meuwese, Anne, Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2008), at p. 35.Google Scholar

44 Majone, Giadomenico, Regulating Europe, (London: Routledge, 1996), at p. 294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schrefler, Lorna, “The Usage of Scientific Knowledge by Independent Regulatory Agencies”, 23 Governance 2010, pp. 309 et sqq., at p. 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 IA Guidelines, supra note 9.

46 Ibid. at p. 27.

47 Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19, at p. 226.

48 In November 2000, Ministers of Public Administration established a high-level advisory group on better regulation, chaired by Dieudonné Mandelkern, and charged it with producing a report within a year. The Mandelkern Group was made up of representatives of the fifteen Member States. Officials from the Commissions Secretariat-General also attended.

49 IA Guidelines, supra note 9, pp. 26–28.

50 IUCN, IEEP, MRAG, UNEP-WCMC, “European Commission Biodiversity Knowledge Base, Assessment of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan as a tool for implementing biodiversity policy”, pp. 9–16.

51 Commission staff working paper – Communication from the Commission: Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being, Impact Assessment, SEC(2006)607/2, at p. 44.

52 Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19 at p. 228.

53 Cf. Section IV.2 supra.

54 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at p. 7.

55 Ogus, Anthony, Costs and Cautionary tales, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), at p. 290.Google Scholar

56 Milgrom and Roberts, supra note 42, at pp. 283–284; De Geest, Gerritt, “Labor Law”, in Hatzis, Aristides (ed.), Economic Analysisof Law: a European Perspective, (Cheltenam: Edward Elgar, 2010).Google Scholar

57 In theory, increase of GDP can be measured. In practice, it is hardly ever possible to build any meaningful counterfactual in which the net impact of a single law on the growth of GDP can be verified ex-post.

58 Milgrom and Roberts, supra note 42, pp. 290–293;

59 IA Guidelines, supra note 9, pp. 45–48; for a critical assessment, cf. Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19, at p. 228.

60 Communication from the Commission. Action plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment” COM(2002)278, at p. 8.

61 Commission staff working paper – Annex to the Proposal for the Council and European Parliament decisions on the 7th Framework Programme (EC and Euratom) Main Report: Overall summary – Impact Assessment and Ex Ante Evaluation, SEC(2005)430, at pp. 7–8.

62 Expert Group on FP7, “Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme”, Brussels, 12/11/2010, at p.9.

63 Ogus, Costs and Cautionary tale, supra note 53, at p. 283.

64 Jacobzone, Stéphane, Choi, Chang-Wong, Miguet, Claire, “Indicators of regulatory management systems”, 4 OECD Working Paperson Public Governance 2007, at p. 48.Google Scholar

65 Meuwese, Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking, supra note 43, at p. 29.

66 Mandelkern Report, Supra note 7, pp. 65–72.

67 In force of art 4(3) of the Treaty on the European Union.

68 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at p. 7; IA Guidelines, supra note 9, at pp. 43–44.

69 Supra note 8, at p. 41.

70 Impact Assessment on the Communication on Biodiversity, supra note 50, at p. 61.

71 Directorate General for Information Society and Media of the European Commission, “Evaluating Legislation and non-spending Interventions in the Area of Information Society and Media”, 2011, available on the Internet at <http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/studies/2009/manual_evaluating_legislation.pdf> (last accessed on 29 October 2012).

72 Action plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment”, supra note 58, at p. 2.

73 Communication on Smart Regulation, supra note 1, at p. 4; EU IA Guidelines, supra note 9, at p. 49.

74 Ibid., at pp. 3–4; Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19.

75 Council Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ 2002 L248/1.

76 ECA, Impact Assessment in the EU Institutions, supra note 9, at p. 49.

77 DG INFSOC Evaluation Manual, supra note 69; Directorate General for Internal Market and Services of the European Commission, “Guide to Evaluating Legislation”, 2008, available on the Internet at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/docs/evaluation/evaluation_guide.pdf (last accessed on 29 October 2012).

78 IUCN, IEEP, MRAG, UNEP-WCMC External Evaluation study, supra note 49, at p. 18.

79 Article 11 of Regulation 717/2007, supra note 41.

80 Article 11 of Regulation 717/2007 as amended by Reg. 544/2009, supra note 41.

81 IA Guidelines, supra note 9, at p. 18.

82 ECA Impact Assessment in the EU Institutions, supra note 8, at pp. 39–40.

83 The Evaluation Partnership, “Evaluation of the Commission Impact Assessment System”, supra note 10, pp. 79–80.

84 Jacobs, Current Trends in RIA, supra note 34, at p. 32.

85 IUCN, IEEP, MRAG, UNEP-WCMC External Evaluation study, supra note 49.

86 DG INFSOC Evaluation Manual, supra note 69.

87 Renda, Law and Economics in the RIA World, supra note 19.