Abstract
Over the past 15 years, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has played a pioneering role in bringing the issue of regulatory reform to the fore. Much has been achieved over the years, with many countries benefitting from the potential offered by quality regulation. Still, the recent crisis exposed massive flaws in regulatory activity, as well as in supervision and enforcement. Other phenomena are also testing the limits of regulatory frameworks. Regulatory policy is currently at the crossroads, and it needs to integrate a broader governance perspective to address current and future challenges. The chapter takes stock of the current debate and discusses possible pathways to address the future–i.e. restoring trust in government through effective regulatory governance. This involves a tighter integration between the organisation and the management of reform. It also requires completing the policy cycle, closing the loop between regulatory design and evaluation of outcomes, with evidence-based approaches to support proportionate decisions, policy coherence and better assessment of the benefits of regulation.
The views expressed in this chapter are the authors’ responsibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
The paradox can be simplistically referred to the possibility that decisions taken to manage one single risk may create other countervailing risks (Graham and Weiner 1995).
- 4.
Among the many ones that might be possibly mentioned, the volcanic ash crisis in Europe in 2010 is a case in point concerning so-called “systemic” or “catastrophic risks” (Alemanno 2010).
- 5.
Unlike risks related to technological progress, “lifestyle risks” occur because of the everyday actions and behaviour of individuals. They are primarily the result of voluntary decisions to accept risks linked both to activities and substances and cover among other drinking, eating, driving, gambling, smocking and leisure (Planzer and Alemanno 2010).
- 6.
- 7.
See http://www.oecd.org/regreform (all Website references were last accessed on 23 May 2011 unless otherwise noted).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
See http://www.oecd.org/regreform; OECD (2005).
- 12.
See http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_2649_34141_35035812_1_1_1_1,00.html. SIGMA is a joint initiative of the OECD and the European Commission supporting EU candidates, potential candidates and European Neighbourhood countries in their public administration reforms. See http://www.sigmaweb.org.
- 13.
The event was organised with the support of the Agency for Administrative Simplification (ASA) and the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union; the Bertelsmann Foundation; the European Commission; and the Board of Swedish Industry and Commerce for Better Regulation (NNR).
- 14.
See for instance Alemanno (2011). OECD has also coordinated concrete policy initiatives in terms of international regulatory cooperation in many sectors, such as the environment, corporate governance, biodiversity, climate change, anti-bribery, chemical testing and agricultural commodities.
- 15.
Without being exhaustive, illustrative examples of such research in Europe are Cecot et al. (2008); Nilsson et al. (2008); Hertin et al. (2009); Staronova (2010)—as well as the reports by the UK National Audit Office or the Board of Swedish Industry and Commerce for Better Regulation (NNR). Similar findings have been reported in the framework of the EU15 project, an initiative carried out by the OECD in partnership with the European Commission. See http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3746,en_2649_34141_41909720_1_1_1_1,00.html(last accessed on 2 February 2011).
- 16.
Whether a RIA is effectiveor not does not depend only on the quality of the analysis and the overall RIA system, but also on the political circumstances under which the dossier is elaborated and discussed. The effectiveness of RIA is closely related to the use that is made of it (Johnson 1998; Nutley et al. 2007) and partly escapes what can be achieved through regulatory reform.
- 17.
These mechanisms help decide on the depth of the required analysis. Thresholds on the economic significance of a given proposal are for instance set in the US and Australia. The triage mechanism, originally developed in Canada, consists of a set of formal questions guiding regulators in selecting the proposals. The principle of proportionate analysis, used notably by the European Commission, implies that level of analysis be proportionate to the significance of the likely impacts; the political importance of the initiative; and its stage in the policy development process (EC 2009).
- 18.
See the US President Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, of 18 January 2011.
References
Ackerman, F. and L. Heinzerling (2004), Priceless. On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, The New Press.
Adonis, A. and T. Hames (eds.) (1994), A Conservative Revolution? The Thatcher-Reagan Decade in Perspective, Manchester University Press.
Alemanno, A. (2010), “The European regulatory response to the volcano ash crisis between fragmentation and integration”, in European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol.1:101–106.
Alemanno, A, (2011), “How to get out of the Transatlantic Regulatory deadlock over GMOs? This is Time for Regulatory Cooperation”, in J. Swinnen & D. Vogel (eds.), Cooperating in Managing Biosafety and Biodiversity in a global world, the United States and the European Union, and California, Edward Elgar (forthcoming).
Allio, L, (2010), “Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in OECD countries”, in S. Hensel et al. (eds.), Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung in der Anwendung. Perspektiven und Entwicklungstendenzen, Nomos, 211–224.
Allio, L, (2011), “On the smartness of Smart Regulation. A brief comment on the future reform agenda”, in European Journal of Risk and Regulation, Vol.1/2011:19–20.
Allio L. and A. Renda (2010), Evaluation of administrative burden reduction programmes, OECD, Paris.
Baldwin, R., M. Cave and M. Lodge (eds.) (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, OUP, London.
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society. Toward a new modernity, Sage.
Braithwaite, J. (2008), Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cecot, C., R.W. Hahn, A. Renda and L. Schrefler (2008), “An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU”, in Regulation & Governance, 2:405–424.
Charbit, C. and M. Michalun (2009), “Mind the gaps: Managing mutual dependence in relations among levels of government”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 14, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Conway, P. et al. (2006), “Regulation, Competition and Productivity Convergence”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 509, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Cordova-Novion, C. and S. Jacobzone (2011), Strengthening the Institutional Setting for Regulatory Reform: The Experience from OECD Countries, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No.19, Paris.
DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1991), “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, p.63–82.
Dunleavy, P. et al. (2005). “New Public Management is dead – Long live digital-era governance”, in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16: 467–494.
European Commission (2009), Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2009) 92 of 15 January 2009.
European Commission, (2010), Smart Regulation in the European Union, COM(2010)543 of 8 October 2010.
Graham G. and J. Weiner (1995), Risk vs. Risk. Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Harrington, W. et al (eds.) (2009), Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, Resources for the Future Report, Washington, DC.
Hertin, J. et al. (2009), “Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process”, in Environment and Planning A, 41:1185–1200.
Hood, C. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”, in Public Administration, 63:3–19.
Hood, C., H. Rothstein and R. Baldwin (2001), The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Jacobzone, S. et al. (2010), “Assessing the impact of Regulatory Management Systems: Preliminary statistical and econometric estimates”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 17, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Johnson, R.B. (1998), “Toward a theoretical model of evaluation utilization”, in Evaluation and Program Planning, 21:93–110.
Laegreid, P., and T. Christensen (eds.) (2001), New Public Management. The transformation of ideas and practice, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Laegreid, P., and T. Christensen, (eds.) (2007a), Transcending the New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Laegreid, P., and T. Christensen, (2007b), “The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform”, in Public Administration Review, 67 (6): 1059–1066.
Levi-Faur, D. (2005), “The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism”, in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598:12–32.
Livermore, M.A. (2011), “A brief comment on ‘Humanizing Cost-Benefit Analysis’”, in European Journal of Risk and Regulation, Vol.1/2011 (forthcoming).
Lodge, M. and D. Gill (2011), “Toward a New Era of Administrative Reform? The Myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand”, in Governance, 24:141–166.
Lofstedt, R.E. (2005), Risk Management in Post-Trust Society, Palgrave Macmillan.
Loughlin, M., and C. Scott (1997), “The regulatory State”, in P. Dunleavy et al. (eds.), Developments in British politics 5, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Majone, G. (1994), “The rise of the regulatory State in Europe”, in West European Politics, 14:77–101.
Majone, G, (1997), “From the positive to the regulatory State”, in Journal of Public Policy, 17:139–67.
Modigliani, F. (1988), “Reagan’s economic policies: A critique”, in Oxford Economic Papers, 40:397–426
Moran, M. (2002), “Review article: Understanding the regulatory State”, in British Journal of Political Science, 32:391–413.
Morgan, B. (2003), “The economization of politics: Meta-regulation as a form of nonjudicial legality”, in Social and Legal Studies, 12:489–523.
Nicoletti, G. and Scarpetta, S. (2003), “Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence”, in Economic Policy, 18/36:9–72.
Nilsson, M. et al. (2008), “The use and non-use of policy appraisal in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union”, in Policy Sciences,41:335–355.
Nutley, S.M., I. Walter, and H.T.O Davies (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Bristol: The Policy Press.
OECD, (1995), Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, Paris1
OECD, (2004), The choice of tools for enhancing policy impact: Evaluation and review, Paris.
OECD, (2005), Designing Independent and Accountable Authorities for High Quality Regulation,Proceedings of an expert meeting in London, 10–11 January 2005, Paris.
OECD, (2006a), Background Document on Regulatory Reform in OECD Countries, at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/35/36267217.pdf(last accessed on 12 January 2011).
OECD, (2006b), Cutting Red Tape: National Strategies for Administrative Simplification, Paris
OECD, (2008a), Building an institutional framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Guidance for Policy Makers, Paris.
OECD, (2008b), Implementing Regulatory Reform: Building the Case Through Results.Proceedings of the Meeting of the Group on Regulatory Policy, December 2007, Paris.
OECD, (2009a), Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems. 2009 Report, Paris.
OECD, (2009b), Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Tool for Policy Coherence, Paris.
OECD, (2009c), Cutting Red Tape II. Draft Analytical Report, Paris.
OECD, (2009d), Overcoming Barriers to Administrative Simplification Strategies: Guidance for Policy Makers, Paris.
OECD, (2010a), Risk and regulatory policy. Improving the governance of risk, Paris.
OECD, (2010b), Why is administrative simplification so complicated? Looking beyond 2010, Paris.
OECD, (2010c), Regulatory Reform Review of Australia. Towards a Seamless National Economy, Paris.
OECD, (2011), Regulatory Policy and Governance: Supporting Economic Growth and Serving the Public Interest, Paris (forthcoming).
Patton, M.Q. (1998), Utilization-focused Evaluation, Sage Publishers.
Planzer, S. and A. Alemanno (2010), “Lifestyle risks: Conceptualizing an emerging category of research”, in European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 4:335–7.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004), Public management reform, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (1999), The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, 2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (2004), The Risk Management of Everything. Rethinking the politics of uncertainty, DEMOS, London.
Radaelli, C.M, (2007), “Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda?”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 14:190–207.
Renn, O. (2008), “Concepts of risk: An interdisciplinary review”, in GAiA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 17:50–66.
Rodrigo, D., L. Allio and P. Andres-Amo (2009), “Multi-level regulatory governance: Policies, institutions and tools for regulatory quality and policy coherence”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 13, OECD publishing, Paris.
Rothstein, H., M. Huber and G. Gaskell (2006), “A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk”, in Economy and Society, 35:91–112.
Savoie, D.J. (1994), Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney. In Search of a New Bureaucracy, University of Pittsburgh Press.
Simmons, B.A. et al. (eds.) (2008), The global diffusion of markets and democracy, CUP, New Yourk.
Staronova, K. (2010), “Regulatory Impact Assessment: Formal institutionalization and practice”, in Journal of Public Policy, 30:117–136.
Sunstein, C.R, (2010), Humanizing cost benefit analysis, Remarks prepared for the Administrative Law Review Conference, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC.
Sunstein, C.R, (2011), “Humanizing Cost-Benefit Analysis”, in European Journal for Risk Regulation(forthcoming).
Thaler, R.H. and C.R. Sunstein, (2008), Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale university Press.
Thaler, R.H., C.R Sunstein and J.P. Balz (2010), Choice Architecture, SSRN paper: last update on April 2, 2010.
Thomas, M. and L. Bukmaster (2010), Paternalism in Social Policy – When is it justifiable?, Research Paper 8, 2010–11, Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library – Information, Analysis, Advice, 15 December 2010.
Vogel, D.J. (2011), The Politics of Precaution: Environmental and Consumer Regulation in the United States and Europe, Princeton University Press (forthcoming).
Wiener, J.B. (2003), “Whose precaution after all? A comment on the comparison and evolution of risk regulatory systems”, in Duke Journal of international and Comparative Law, 59:447–518.
Wiener, J.B, (2006), “Better Regulation in Europe”, in Current Legal Problems, 59:447–518.
Wiener, J.B et al. (eds.) (2010), The reality of precaution, RFF Press, Washington DC.
Yeung, K. (2010), “The regulatory State”, in R. Baldwin, M. Cave and M. Lodge (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, OUP, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allio, L., Jacobzone, S. (2012). Regulatory Policy at the Crossroads: Mapping an OECD Agenda for the Futures. In: Alemanno, A., den Butter, F., Nijsen, A., Torriti, J. (eds) Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4406-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4406-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4405-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4406-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)