Advertisement

Implementation

  • Virgilio Zapatero Gómez
Chapter
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 6)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the implementation of legislation, and also highlights the importance of legislative memoranda and impact analyses. A norm is not well constructed if the factors that will facilitate its successful implementation are not taken into account during its making process. Apart from the correct use of legislative language, the development of the draft norm must therefore include the provision of the necessary material, personal and procedural resources for its application, as well as the forecast of acceptance on the part of citizens. On the other hand, the memorandum that should accompany every draft norm is a powerful instrument that makes it possible to clearly define the objectives of the norm, evaluate the options that have been considered and justify the chosen solution from the perspective of both economic and social cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords

Implementation Resources for legislative implementation Cost-benefit analysis Memoranda 

References

  1. Bardach E (1977) Implementation game: what happens after a bill becomes a law. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Barettoni Arleri A (1983) Fattibilità ed applicabilità delle leggi. Relazione conclusiva della Commissione di studio per la semplificazione della procedure e la fattibilità ed applicabilità delle leggi. Maggioli Editore, RomaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham J (1981) De la promulgación de las leyes. In: Tratados de legislación penal y civil. Editora Nacional, MadridGoogle Scholar
  4. Bettini R (1983) Il circolo vizioso legislative. Efficacia del diritto ed efficienza degli apparati pubblici in Italia. Franco Angeli Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  5. Braithwaite J (1993) L’amelioration du respect de la réglementation: stratégies et applications pratiques dans les pays membres de l’OCDE. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Bundesministerium der Justiz (2008) Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit. Bundesministerium der Justiz für Verbraucherschutz, Berlin, 3.Auflage. Published in the Bundesanzeiger 60, no. 160a, 22 September 2008. http://hdr.bmj.de
  7. Bunker DR (1972) Policy sciences perspectives on implementation processes. Policy Sci 3:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Mably L’A (1797) De la législation ou Principes des Lois (Œuvres Complètes), vol 9. Chez Bossange, Masson et Besson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Dertick M (1972) New towns in-towns. The Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Dublin LI, Lotka A (1946) The money of a man. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunlop CA, Radaelli CM (eds) (2017) Handbook on regulatory impact assessment. E. Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2016) Better regulation: delivering better Results for a Stronger Union [COM (2016) 615 final]Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (2017a) Completing the Better Regulation Agenda: Better Solutions for Better Results [COM (2017) 651 final]Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2017b) Better Regulations Guidelines (Working Document) [SWD (2017) 350]Google Scholar
  15. Evan W (1980) Law as an instrument of social change. In: Evan W (ed) The sociology of law. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Galiana A (2008) La ley, entre la razón y la experimentación. Tirant lo Blanch, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  17. Giannini Commission (1979) Rapporto sui principali problemi della Admministrazione dello Stato (In Il Foro Italiano V: 250–272)Google Scholar
  18. Hopkins TD (1992) Cost of regulation: filling the gaps. Report prepared for Regulatory Information Service Center (August 1992). Regulatory Information Service Center, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs SH (1997) An overview of regulatory impact analysis in OECD countries. In: Regulatory impact analysis. Best practices in OECD countries. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleinig J (1961) Valuing life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Mader L (1985) L’Évaluation législative. Pour une analyse empirique des effets de la législation. Payot, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayntz R (ed) (1983) Implementation politischer Programme II: Ansätze zur Theoriebildung. Westdeutscher Verlag, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayntz R (1977) Die Implementation politischer Programme: Theoretische Überlegungen zu einem neuen Forschungsgebiet. Die Verwaltung 10:51–66Google Scholar
  24. Mayntz R (ed) (1980) Implementation politischer Programme I: Empirische Forschungsberichte. Athenäum, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands (1995) Business test checklist and notes-effects of draft legislation. The HagueGoogle Scholar
  26. Montoro MJ (1989) Adecuación al ordenamiento y factibilidad. Presupuestos de calidad de las normas. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, MadridGoogle Scholar
  27. Morand CA (ed) (1993) Évaluation législative et lois experimentales. Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-ProvenceGoogle Scholar
  28. Morral JF (1992) La maîtrise des coûts de la réglementation: le recours à la budgétisation des réglementations. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. National Performance Review (U.S.) (1994) Creating a government that works better and cost less. Report of the national performance review. U.S Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (1993) Mise au point et utilisation des listes des critères à prendre en compte pour l’élaboration des réglementations. OECD/GD (93)181. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (1994) Procédures de consultation pour l’élaboration de consultation: pratiques et expériences de dix pays de l’OCDE. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (2004) Regulatory Reform in Germany. Government capacity to assure high quality regulation. OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2011) Regulatory policy and governance. Supporting economic growth and serving the public interest. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. Plato (1988) Las leyes. Porrúa, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  35. Pressman J, Wildadsky AB (1973) Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  36. Rousseau JJ (1971) Discours sur l’oeconomie politique. In: Oevres Complètes, vol 2. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Sabatier P (1980) The implementation of public policy: a framework of analysis. Policy Stud J 8(4):545–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmid D’Avenstein GL (1821 [1776]) Principios de Legislación Universal. Imprenta Roldán, ValladolidGoogle Scholar
  39. Seidman R (1992) Justifying legislation: a pragmatic, institutionalist approach to the memorandum of law, legislative theory and practical reason. Harv J Legis 29:1–79Google Scholar
  40. Sunstein CR (1985) Interest groups in American public law. Stan Law Rev 38:29–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teubner G (1987) Juridification: concepts, aspects, limits, solutions. In: Teubner G (ed) Juridification of social spheres. A comparative analysis in the areas of labor, corporate, antitrust and social welfare law. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 3–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tolchin SJ, Tolchin M (1983) Dismantling America. The rush to deregulate. Boston, Houston Miflin CompanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson JO (1967) The bureaucracy problem. Pub Int 6:3–9Google Scholar
  44. Wiscusi WK (1993) L’amélioration du respect de la réglementation: stratégies et applications pratiques dans les pays membres de l’OCDE. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiscusi WK (1995) Regulation and its impact on competitiveness. A paper commisioned by the U.S. Competitiveness Council. WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virgilio Zapatero Gómez
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de DerechoUniversidad de Alcalá de HenaresAlcalá de HenaresSpain

Personalised recommendations