Abstract
Brazil has embraced institutional and legal reforms towards “good regulatory practices” (GRP) built on the OECD’s “better regulation” agenda. New laws and decrees made Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) mandatory in all public administration’s rulemaking, as well as stock reviews and “ex-post” evaluations. Following such steps, a regulatory oversight body is under scrutiny by policymakers. This paper assesses national regulatory reforms through international and transnational lenses. It primarily argues that nation-states make policy immersed in a dense web of networks, highlighting that it is not possible to understand domestic legal changes without assessing transnational legal processes. It further argues the importance of the OECD as a purveyor of ideas and a critical node in transnational regulatory governance. First, it unpacks the concept of GRP codified into the OECD recommendations and its construction through data collection, checklists, and toolkits, challenging its coherence and functions as a golden standard policy for “better regulation.” Secondly, it unveils how these techniques are disseminated worldwide through mechanisms of soft governance, such as peer review, persuasion, surveillance, comparison, and ranking. Then, it turns to the case of Brazil, assessing how these tools and technical knowledge have been transmitted to this specific institutional context. The case of Brazil sheds light on the effectiveness of policy and legal transfers through transnational processes involving peer pressure, social learning, the role of indicators, and cultural change.
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.
Law n° 13.874/19 (Economic Freedom Act - EFA) (Law n. 13,874, from 20 Sept 2019. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/lei/L13874.htm) set the framework for the regulatory environment: i) the institutionalization of RIA as mandatory for all proposals or amendments of normative acts edited by all entities of the federal public administration; and ii) the recognition of international standards. Both provisions were regulated by Decrees 10.411/2019 (Decree n. 10,411, from 30 Jun 2020, available at: https://www.gov.br/mdr/pt-br/assuntos/analise-de-impacto-regulatorio-air/D10411.pdf; and Decree n. 10,229, from 05 Feb 2020, available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/D10229.htm.
- 3.
- 4.
Decree n. 9, 920/2019 established the Council for the Preparation and Monitoring of the Accession Process of the Federative Republic of Brazil to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2019/decreto-9920-18-julho-2019-788847-norma-pe.html; for a timeline on Brazil’s engagement with the OECD, see the OECD webpage, available at: https://www.oecd.org/latin-america/countries/brazil/.
- 5.
- 6.
Jordão and Cunha (2020), pp. 227–255.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Albuquerque and López Azumendi (2022), pp. 1–13.
- 12.
The term “toolbox” is usually referred in policy literature such as working papers and reports from the OECD and the World Bank. See OECD (2021a), pp. 25–27 and WORLD BANK GROUP (2010), pp. 16. The term is applied both to the European Commission policies and to the U.S. policies and regulations. See, as examples, European Commission (2021) and Cai (2016), pp. 296;511. Academic literature also refers to “regulatory toolbox”, either as a blueprint for regulatory governance or in a critical perspective. For some examples see Kjaer (2018), p. 14; Lodge and Kai (2012), pp. 18–25 and Queiroz-Cunha and Rodrigo (2012), p. 17. For the idea of a “never-ending” process, see particularly Pal (2008), as described better in Sect. 2.1 of this chapter.
- 13.
I employ here the term “transnational norm” as “a collection of legal norms and associated institutions within a given domain that order behavior across national jurisdictions”. The related concept “transnational legal process” is “the process through which the transnational construction and conveyance of legal norms take place”. Both terms are defined in Shaffer and Halliday’s framework as a sociolegal approach and methodological conception, where they shift the focus from transnational law as a body of law or legal doctrine to processes of transnational legal ordering and the construction and migration of legal norms across borders, regardless of whether they address transnational activities or purely national ones.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Halliday and Shaffer (2015), pp. 11–15.
- 17.
Halliday and Shaffer (2015), p. 32.
- 18.
Pal (2008), pp. 60–76.
- 19.
Pal (2008), p. 61.
- 20.
Id., in Pal’s (2008) own words, “reform would be a project without end, since the reformation of one part of the system will inevitably perturb other parts, which will, in turn, have to be adjusted and reformed, ad infinitum. Inversions without end.” (p. 78)
- 21.
- 22.
Ladegaard Peter and Kamkhaji (2018). This World Bank cross-country quantitative study mapped developing countries’ regulatory reforms in 60 countries from 2001 to 2016 to understand which ones produced successful RIA systems despite adhering or not to the overall package of GRP. Brazil and Armenia were considered notable outliers for having put in place functional RIA systems with limited observations of “good practices”.
- 23.
- 24.
PUMA had a critical role in developing and disseminating New Public Management Reforms. In 2004 the name was changed to Public Governance Committee and in 2009 to Regulatory Policy Committee, which has acted as the central venue for the development and implementation of regulatory policy programs.
- 25.
Pal (2012), pp. 34–57.
- 26.
- 27.
Jakobi (2012), pp. 14–17.
- 28.
The OECD does not define “Good Regulatory Practices” (GRP), but it does mention the expression in several documents. A vast academic and policy literature also refers to GRP. The idea of a normative concept comes from a compilation of the main OECD recommendations, guidelines, reports, country peer reviews and working papers on regulatory governance and reforms. The main OECD webpage referencing all these documents is available at: https://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/recommendations-guidelines.html.
- 29.
OECD (2021b).
- 30.
Jakobi (2012), p. 3.
- 31.
Lodge and Wegrich (2009), p. 151.
- 32.
Lodge and Wegrich (2009), p. 145.
- 33.
Lang (2019), p. 30. By ‘un-governance,’ Lang means that GRP embeds a set of open-ended organizational routines into regulatory decision-making, which may be associated with different political projects in diverse contexts. The constant ability to enact such rituals implies that GRP is not part of a broader rule-making project but rather a contestability project about un-settling market orders and un-making institutions.
- 34.
OECD (1995).
- 35.
The questions are: 1. Is the Problem Correctly Defined? 2. Is Government Action Justified? 3. Is Regulation the Best Form of Government Action? 4. Is there a Legal Basis for Regulation? 5. What is the Appropriate Level (or Levels) of Government for this Action? 6. Do the Benefits of Regulation Justify the Costs? 7. Is the Distribution of Effects across Society Transparent? 8. Is the Regulation Clear, Consistent, Comprehensible, and Accessible to Users? 9. Have All Interested Parties had the Opportunity to Present their Views? 10. How will Compliance be Achieved?
- 36.
OECD (1995), p. 8.
- 37.
OECD (1995), p. 9.
- 38.
OECD (1995), p. 9.
- 39.
Halliday (2012), p. 91.
- 40.
OECD (1997), p. 2.
- 41.
OECD (1997), p. 2.
- 42.
Baldwin (2010), p. 4.
- 43.
Baldwin (2010), p. 4.
- 44.
Sahlin-Andersson (2000). National, international and transnational construction of new public management. Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research (SCORE) Working Paper 2000-4, cited by Mahon and McBride (2008), p. 11.
- 45.
OECD (2002).
- 46.
The Office of Regulation Review in Australia, the Office of Regulatory Affairs in Canada, the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) in the UK, the United States Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); and the Japan’s Administrative Reform Committee.
- 47.
OECD (2002), pp. 28–37.
- 48.
Regulatory Impact Assessment Inventory (2004); OECD Guiding Principles for Quality and Regulatory Performance (2005); Introductory Handbook for Undertaking RIA (2008); Determinants of Quality in Regulatory Impact Analysis (2009).
- 49.
Radaelli (2005).
- 50.
Radaelli (2005), p. 940.
- 51.
OECD (2010), pp. 22–26.
- 52.
OECD (2010), p. 28.
- 53.
OECD (2012), p. 2.
- 54.
OECD (2012), pp. 6–12.
- 55.
OECD (2021a).
- 56.
OECD (2021a).
- 57.
Pal (2008).
- 58.
The spread of policies, ideas, and institutions across different countries have been studied in international relations, public policy, comparative politics, sociology and other fields, with a terminological and conceptual diversity among scholars. Some studies focus on processes and others on outcomes. The most common denominations to explain these phenomena are “policy transfer”, “policy diffusion” (Marsh and Sharman, 2009), “policy convergence” (Knill 2005), and “institutional isomorphism” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). In this article, I employ “diffusion” as defined by Dobbin et al. (2007): “international policy diffusion occurs when government policy decisions in a given country are systematically conditioned by prior choices made in other countries (sometimes mediated by the behavior of international organizations or private actors and organizations)”. For policy diffusion’s analyses specifically involving the OECD Regulatory Policy, see De Francesco (2013) and Radaelli (2005) as primary references.
- 59.
There is scarce literature on peer review, and the topic is often addressed marginally in the context of compliance. See generally Downs et al. (1996).
- 60.
Pagani (2002).
- 61.
Pagani (2002), p. 18.
- 62.
Porter and Webb (2008), p. 44. Constructivist approaches assert that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors, historically and socially constructed. For relevant references on this approach, see Ruggie (1998) and Finnemore and Sikkink (2001). Porter and Webb provide a case study of the OECD work on corporate governance from a constructivist approach, presenting the organization as a space where intersubjective meanings emerge through social interactions of its member states, and identities are socially constructed.
- 63.
Rationalist theories of international institutions see them as efficient mechanisms for states to pursue their self-interests, on the basis of rational calculation of the material costs and benefits of membership. Rationalist models operate according to a “logic of consequences”—with international negotiations understood primarily as strategic interaction among actors seeking to maximize exogenous interests (March and Olsen 1998). Neo-liberal institutionalists also posit that international organizations assist states in achieving their ends (Hobson 2000).
- 64.
Porter and Webb (2008), pp. 43–59.
- 65.
Wolfe (2008), p. 41.
- 66.
Noaksson and Jacobsson (2003), pp. 25–31. The authors nicely describe the cycle of the peer review process, involving the joint efforts by the reviewed country, the examiners countries and the OECD Secretariat. The expression “mental framework” is referred by Rianne Mahon and Stephen McBride, when commenting on the OECD questionnaires and how the questions posed to the reviewed country direct their attention to a set of problem areas that the OECD finds interesting. (Mahon and McBride 2008, p. 9).
- 67.
Pagani (2002), p. 19.
- 68.
March and Olsen (1998), p. 961.
- 69.
Vitale et al. (2020). This publication analyses the 2018 edition of the OECD PMR indicators and database.
- 70.
The OECD Measuring Regulatory Performance programme is available at: www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-performance.html.
- 71.
Merry et al. (2015).
- 72.
OECD (1998), p. 4.
- 73.
OECD (1998), p. 5.
- 74.
Interview with a representative from the Ministry of Economy. On file with author.
- 75.
Bresser-Pereira (2004), p. 173.
- 76.
Brazil, Casa Civil. Análise e avaliação do papel das agências reguladoras no atual arranjo institucional brasileiro: relatório do Grupo de Trabalho Interministerial. Editora República Federativa do Brasil, Casa Civil, 2003. Available at: http://www.nuca.ie.ufrj.br/furnas/fianibibliografia/camara2.pdf.
- 77.
Câmara dos Deputados, EMP 16/2004, PL 3,337/2004. Available at https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=251367.
- 78.
Prado (2008), pp. 27–42.
- 79.
Presidential Decree n. 6,062, March 17th, 2007. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6062.htm.
- 80.
OECD (2007).
- 81.
OECD (2008).
- 82.
Wolfe (2008), p. 32.
- 83.
Mahon and McBride (2008), p. 3.
- 84.
Noboru (2004).
- 85.
The five countries invited were Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, and Slovenia.
- 86.
Porter and Webb (2008).
- 87.
Mahbubani (2012).
- 88.
Porter and Webb (2008), p. 58.
- 89.
OECD (2008), p. 11.
- 90.
OECD (2008), p. 13.
- 91.
OECD (2008), p. 15.
- 92.
For a thorough review of PRO-REG and the documents produced, see https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/governanca/regulacao/sistema-regulatorio-brasileiro/historico-do-pro-reg.
- 93.
Brazil signed a Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom to carry out a project on “Better regulation.” A course on “Regulation Theory and Practice” was held in July 2010, taught by professors Martin Lodge from the London School of Economics and Kai Wegrich from the Hertie School of Governance. National and foreign consultant experts were hired to study international experiences on RIA, oversight bodies, institutional designs, the development of databanks to support evidenced rulemaking, and ombudsman institutions for regulatory agencies.
- 94.
- 95.
Queiroz-Cunha and Rodrigo (2013), p. 8.
- 96.
Interview with a public official from the Ministry of Economy. On file with author.
- 97.
Brazil-US Business Council (2014): Advancing the Regulatory Coherence Agenda in Brazil. Available online at https://www.brazilcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/021933_Brazil_RegCoherence_IN_final.pdf.
- 98.
Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior. Brasil e Estados Unidos anunciam novos acordos em convergência regulatória e patentes, 19/11/2015, http://www.comexresponde.gov.br/portalmdic/sitio/interna/noticia.php?area=5¬icia=14179; Casa Civil da Presidência da República, Coerência e Boas Práticas Regulatórias, Abril, 2015, available at: https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/governanca/regulacao/eventos/2018/coerencia-regulatoria-sag-casa-civil-se-camex-einmetro/apresentacoes/apresentacaocoerenciaregulatoria_sag_06abr2018.pdf.
- 99.
International Trade Administration. US Brazil Commercial Dialogue Statement, March 2015, available at: https://www.trade.gov/brazil-us-brazil-commercial-dialogue-statement-march-2015; FGVEESP Centro de Estudos do Comércio Global e Investimento. Regulatory Coherence and Convergence. Presentation of the project supported by the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Embassy and funded through the Prosperity Fund. Available at: https://ccgi.fgv.br/en/regulatory-coherence-and-convergence; Thorstensen and Nogueira (orgs.) Coerência e Convergência Regulatória: Modelos Regulatórios de Parceiros do Brasil. EUA, EU, Canadá, Coréia do Sul, Japão, México, Acordos Regionais de Comércio de EUA e UE. Available at: https://ccgi.fgv.br/sites/ccgi.fgv.br/files/u5/Coerencia-Convergencia-Regulatoria-INMETRO2019_TN.pdf; http://camex.gov.br/images/Eventos/ConvRegulatoria/RELATORIO-FINAL-Vol-4%2D%2D-Sintese-e-Concluses.pdf.
- 100.
Hoekman and Sabel (2019), p. 217.
- 101.
In 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Forum (TEC) for regulatory cooperation and economic convergence was established between the United States and the European Union. In the TEC’s founding document signed by U.S. President George Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both countries committed themselves to a robust regulatory cooperation agenda, promising “to remove unnecessary differences between their regulations to foster economic integration. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/.
- 102.
The TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership was the result of an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP, also referred to as P4), between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. From 2008, other countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam. In January 2017, the United States withdrew from the TPP. On December 30, 2018, the CPTPP entered into force among the 11 remaining countries.
- 103.
Young (2015); Benvenisti (2015) and Laursen and Roederer-Rynning (2017). See also the critical academic project jointly coordinated by the Institute for International Law and Governance (IILJ), the New York University (NYU) Law School, and the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo on the TPP as a U.S. megaregulation and political ordering project (Kingsburry et al. 2019).
- 104.
OECD (2012).
- 105.
OECD (2013).
- 106.
Executive Order 13,609 (May 1, 2012), 77 FR 26413.
- 107.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is a U.S. sub-agency within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), integrating the President’s Executive Office. It was created in the Paperwork Reduction Act signed by President Carter in 1980 and was given the role of reviewing Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for all major regulations by Executive Order 12291.
- 108.
Sunstein (2012).
- 109.
Trubek et al. (2017).
- 110.
- 111.
Under the Worker Party’s administration, Brazilian foreign policy had prioritized relations with nontraditional partners in the developing world (“South-South” relations) and coalitions with Brazil-Russia-India-China- South Africa (BRICS) group and the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) forum.
- 112.
Joint Statement on the Occasion of the Visit by President Barack Obama to Brazil (March 19, 2022). Available at: https://www.brazilcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/JointStatementObamaandRousseff-Mar192011.pdf.
- 113.
White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Strengthening the U.S.-Brazil Economic Relationship,” March 19, 2011.
- 114.
CAMEX Resolution 44/2011. Available at: http://www.camex.gov.br/resolucoes-camex-e-outros-normativos/58-resolucoes-da-camex/1000-resolucao-n-44-de-11-de-julho-de-2011.
- 115.
Brazil-US Business Council (2014).
- 116.
Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior. Brasil e Estados Unidos anunciam novos acordos em convergência regulatória e patentes, 19/11/2015, available at: http://www.comexresponde.gov.br/portalmdic/sitio/interna/noticia.php?area=5¬icia=14179; Casa Civil da Presidência da República, Coerência e Boas Práticas Regulatórias, Abril, 2015, available at: https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/governanca/regulacao/eventos/2018/coerencia-regulatoria-sag-casa-civil-se-camex-e inmetro/apresentacoes/apresentacaocoerenciaregulatoria_sag_06abr2018.pdf.
- 117.
The Trade Dialogue was originally established in 2006 through a Letter of Intent to intensify the dialogue between the defense industries of the two countries and increase the trade flow in this sector. Available at: www.mdic.gov.br/index.php/component/content/article/61-noticias/1951-brasil-e-estados-unidos-assinam-carta-de-intencoes-para-intensificar-dialogo-na-industria-da-defesa.
- 118.
Brazilian Ministry of Economy, Industry, Foreign Trade, and Services. Available at: www.trade.gov/bcd/pdfs/moi-coherence-private-sector.pdf.
- 119.
For a full reference of these informal trade dialogues, see Sect. 3.3. of this chapter, especially notes 143–146.
- 120.
Sanchez-Badin and Badin (2019).
- 121.
Levy has experience in left and right-wing governments. He is a former secretary of the National Treasury of Lula da Silva’s government (2003), a former finance minister of the Dilma Rousseff government (2015), and a former president of BNDES of the Bolsonaro government (2018). Interview to BBCNews Brasil. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-50677801.
- 122.
OECD. Signing of cooperation agreement between the OECD and Brazil. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/brazil/signing-of-cooperation-agreement-between-oecd-and-brazil.html. Despite the signing of the agreement happened in 2015, only in 2019, under the Bolsonaro’s administration, the Decree 10,109, of November 7, promulgated the Cooperation Agreement between Brazil and the OECD.
- 123.
The event of signature was attended by Joaquim Levy, Minister of Finance; Mauro Vieira, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD; besides several representatives from Fundação Getúlio Vargas. (FGV). Available at: https://portal.fgv.br/en/news/fgv-participates-signing-protocol-between-brazilian-government-and-oecd.
- 124.
OECD (2015), p. 28.
- 125.
OECD, The OECD and Brazil, March 2018. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/brazil/Active-with-Brazil.pdf.
- 126.
- 127.
China Daily. 2015. Brazil Sole Nation in LatAm to Join AIIB, 7 April. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2015-04/07/content_20012806.html.
- 128.
OECD Legal Instruments. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments?mode=advanced&adherentIds=27&yearFrom=2015&yearTo=2018.
- 129.
Trubek et al. (2017), pp. 651–656.
- 130.
Ministério das Relações Exteriores, “Negociação Brasil-México para ampliação e aprofundamento do ACE-53-Troca de Lista de Pedidos Recíprocos (2015); available at: http://perma.cc/FA3K-B4AK; Ministério das Relações Exteriores, “República da Colômbia”; available at: http://perma.cc/CD7P-WDX5; Ministério das Relações Exteriores, “República do Chile”; available at: http://perma.cc/P9J4-8XUG.
- 131.
Interviews with a trade official and a diplomat. Interviews on file with author. “Itamaraty” refers to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations. The origin of the name is due to a tribute to the palace that belonged to the Barão do Itamaraty located in the city of Rio de Janeiro, and which served as the first headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the country between 1898 and 1970.
- 132.
Interviews with a trade official and a diplomat. Interviews on file with author.
- 133.
Albuquerque and López Azumendi (2022), pp. 10–11.
- 134.
Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Available at: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=13334&ano=2016&ato=cf9ITW650dZpWT5b4.
- 135.
Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, Conselho Nacional de Arquivos. Available at: https://www.gov.br/conarq/pt-br/legislacao-arquivistica/leis-e-decretos-leis/lei-no-13-726-de-8-de-outubro-de-2018.
- 136.
Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/d9203.html.
- 137.
INMETRO is the Brazilian regulatory body for quality and safety product regulation.
- 138.
Memorandum of Intent on Joint Cooperation on Regulatory Coherence and Meaningful Engagement with the Private Sector. Available at: https://legacy.trade.gov/bcd/pdfs/moi-coherence-private-sector.pdf.
- 139.
US Department of Commerce and Brazil Ministry of development, Industry and Foreign Trade, “Joint Statement of the 13th edition of the Brazil-US Commercial Dialogue” (Brasília, Nov. 19, 2015). Available at: http://perma.cc/E792-V58D.
- 140.
Trubek et al. (2017), p. 668.
- 141.
For a full reference of US-Brazil Commercial Dialogues, see: https://www.trade.gov/brazil-us-commercial-dialogue.
- 142.
Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Protocol to the Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation Between the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the United States of America Relating to Trade Rules and Transparency. Available at: https://www.gov.br/mre/en/contact-us/press-area/press-releases/protocol-to-the-agreement-on-trade-and-economic-cooperation-between-the-government-of-the-federative-republic-of-brazil-and-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-relating-to-trade-rules-and-transparency.
- 143.
The Protocol was signed during the Coronavirus health crisis. On May 21, 2020 the governments issued a joint statement highlighting the commitment to reduce trade barriers and to increase bilateral trade and investment. Topics were trade facilitation, regulatory practices, technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures, intellectual property, and digital trade. The Protocol was negotiated entirely virtual during lockdowns, with great efforts from private sector entities in both countries. Available at: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2020/april/brazil-us-joint-statement-enhancement-bilateral-economic-and-trade-partnership. There was an underlying pressure to conclude this agreement before the presidential elections in the U.S on November 3, 2020. The goal was to take advantage of the narrow “political window” opened by the synergy between presidents Trump and Bolsonaro because only an agreement that did not include tariffs could be negotiated without the US Congress’ approval and the MERCOSUR’s consent. US Congress’ approval was highly unlikely, given robust and explicit opposition by the Democrats to pursuing any type of trade agreement or expanded economic partnership with Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro.
- 144.
Brazil. Ministério das Relações Exteriores. [19 Oct 2020] Available at: https://www.gov.br/mre/en/contact-us/press-area/press-releases/joint-press-release-united-states-and-brazil-sign-new-protocol-on-trade-rules-and-transparency.
- 145.
Brasil. Casa Civil. Gestão do Estoque Regulatório: Iniciativas das Agências Reguladoras Federais. Maio 2018. Available at: https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/governanca/regulacao/apresentacao-regulacao-pasta/acesse-aqui/gestao-estoque-regulatorio/gestao-estoque-regulatorio-iniciativas-das-agencias-reguladoras-federais. Decree No. 10.139/19 stated the obligation to review and consolidate all normative acts lower than a decree in the federal administration. Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Decreto N 9,203/2017. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/d9203.html.
- 146.
Brasil. Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Lei N 13.848/2019. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/lei/l13848.htm.
- 147.
Albuquerque and Guaranys (2018), PL das Agências Reguladoras: quando o básico é revolucionário e urgente. Jota, 28/08/2018. Available at: https://www.jota.info/tributos-e-empresas/regulacao/pl-das-agencias-reguladoras-quando-o-basico-e-revolucionario-e-urgente-28082018 (free translation).
- 148.
Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Lei N 13.874/2019. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/lei/L13874.htm.
- 149.
Congresso Nacional. Medida Provisória N 881/2019 (Liberdade Econômica). Available at: https://www.congressonacional.leg.br/materias/medidas-provisorias/-/mpv/136531.
- 150.
The document with the reasons for the proposal was electronically signed by Marcelo Pacheco dos Guaranys, Sergio Fernando Moro, and Renato de Lima França. EMI n° 00083/2019 ME AGU MJSP, Brasília, 11 de Abril de 2019. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/Exm/Exm-MP-881-19.pdf.
- 151.
EMI n° 00083/2019 ME AGU MJSP, p. 2.
- 152.
EMI n° 00083/2019 ME AGU MJSP, p. 1.
- 153.
The result was the creation of seven special secretariats and the National Treasury Attorney’s Office, coordinated and supported by the Executive Secretariat. Each ME special secretariat has between one and four secretariats or equivalent units. The ministry had approximately 42,000 civil servants, a payroll of R$2 billion (Brazilian real) per month, and more than 1300 buildings. See Brasil – Ministério da Economia: Análise das funções principais e seus macroprocessos operacionais Macroprocessos operacionais de benchmarking com experiências do Canadá, da Espanha, dos Estados Unidos, da França, do México, do Peru e do Reino Unido. Available at: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/portuguese/document/Brasil-Ministerio-da-Economia-Analise-das-funces-principais-e-seus-macroprocessos-operacionais-Macroprocessos-operacionais-de-benchmarking-com-experincias-do-Canada-da-Espanha-dos-Estados-Unidos-da-Franca-do-Mexico-do-Peru-e-do-Reino-Unido.pdf.
- 154.
See supra note 69.
- 155.
An example of such presentations may be found at: https://events.iadb.org/events/handler/geteventdocument.ashx?AFCF784DCD0CBF43BE2C6862BF3344018BA7DAC5632DC23F96E18F163AE4759CB4A62D8098D5AA588F0E2825B52F233ADF4C0BA8E245E6BD8AE0D1A0B986D2FDE23A6575964F078E. Geanluca Lorenzon was the head of the Secretary of Advocacy for Competition and Competitiveness of the Ministry of Economy (SEAE). He was one of the formulators of the Economic Freedom Provisional Measure, and first occupied the directorate of debureaucratization of the Ministry of Economy. Before working to the Ministry of Economy, Lorenzon was a consultant at McKinsey and director of the Mises Institute in Brazil.
- 156.
EMI n° 00083/2019 ME AGU MJSP, p. 6–7. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/Exm/Exm-MP-881-19.pdf.
- 157.
Câmara dos Deputados. MPV 881/2019. Available at: https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=2199763.
- 158.
Respectively, Decree 10.411/20 and Decree 10.229/20. Decree 10.411/2020 also regulated an embryo of ex-post evaluation, specifying that public entities of the federal government shall conduct an evaluation of regulatory outcomes (called ARR - Análise de Resultado Regulatório). Such obligations came into force in October 2022.
- 159.
SEAE’s roles and responsibilities are established in Article 119 of Decree 9,745/2019, which defines the structure of the Ministry of Economy. However, the decree does not specify an explicit mandate to promote and oversee the regulatory policy.
- 160.
OECD (2022).
- 161.
OECD (2022), p. 5.
- 162.
OECD (2022), p. 31.
- 163.
OECD (2022), p. 31.
- 164.
OECD (2022), p. 69.
- 165.
OECD (2022), p. 69.
- 166.
OECD (2022), pp. 43;70;80.
- 167.
OECD (2022), p. 72.
- 168.
Lang (2019), p. 24.
- 169.
OECD (2015), p. 28.
- 170.
Presidência da República, Secretaria-Geral, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Lei N 13.874/2019. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/lei/L13874.htm.
- 171.
OECD (2022), pp. 43;70;80.
References
Albuquerque K, López Azumendi S (2022) Estados ágeis na América Latina: a coordenação dentro do setor público como fator chave das estratégias de melhoria regulatória e o caso do Brasil. Available at: http://cafscioteca.azurewebsites.net/handle/123456789/1876
Aquila G et al (2019) Quantitative regulatory impact analysis: experience of regulatory agencies in Brazil. Util Policy 59:100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100931
Baldwin R (2010) Better regulation: the search and the struggle. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook on regulation. Oxford University Press, pp 259–278
Benvenisti E (2015) Democracy Captured: The Mega-Regional Agreements and the Future of Global Public Law. Global Trust Working Paper Series 08/2015. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646882
Brazil-US Business Council (2014) Advancing the Regulatory Coherence Agenda in Brazil. Available at: https://www.brazilcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/021933_Brazil_RegCoherence_IN_final.pdf
Bresser-Pereira LC (2004) Democracy and public management reform. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cai PXF (2016) Regulatory coherence and standardization mechanisms in the trans-Pacific partnership. Br J Am Leg Stud 5(2):505–538
Carvalho B et al (2020) Better utility regulation through RIA? Merits and implications based on the Brazilian case. Util Policy 64:101023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101023
Casarões G (2020) Leaving the club without slamming the door: Brazil’s return to middle-power status. In: Esteves P et al (eds) Status and the rise of Brazil: global ambitions, humanitarian engagement and international challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, pp 89–110
Cervo AL, Lessa AC (2014) O declínio: inserção internacional do Brasil (2011–2014). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 57(2):133–151
Cormac M (1985) Blood Meridian or the evening redness in the west. Random House
Davis CL (2016) More than Just a Rich Country Club: Membership Conditionality and Institutional Reform in the OECD. Princeton University Working Paper. Available at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/cldavis/files/davis2016b.pdf
De Francesco F (2013) Transnational policy innovation: the OECD and the diffusion of regulatory impact analysis. ECPR Press, Colchester
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Soc Rev 48:147–160
Dobbin F et al (2007) The global diffusion of public policies: social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annu Rev Sociol 33:449–472
Donadelli et al (2020) ‘Post-NPM’ by force or fiat? A comparison of administrative reform trajectories in Brazil and Mexico. Public Admin Dev 40(5):255–266
Downs GW et al (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about co-operation? Int Organ 50(3):379–406
Dubash N, Morgan B (2012) Understanding the rise of the regulatory state of the south. Regul Gov 6(3):261–281
European Commission (2021) ‘Better Regulation’ Toolbox. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/br_toolbox_-_june_2022-chapter_1.pdf
Finnemore M, Sikkink K (2001) Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annu Rev Polit Sci 4(1):391–416
Halliday T (2012) Architects of the state: international organizations and the reconstruction of states in East Asia. Law Soc Inq 37(2):265–296
Halliday T, Shaffer G (eds) (2015) Transnational legal orders. Cambridge University Press, New York
Hobson JM (2000) The state and international relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hoekman B, Sabel C (2019) In a world of value chains: what space for regulatory coherence and cooperation in trade agreements? In: Kingsbury B et al (eds) Megaregulation contested. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 217–239
Holperin M (2019) Diffusion and adaptation of the regulatory agency model in Brazil. Rev Adm Pública 53(6):1116–1137
Hood C (2004) The art of the state: culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jakobi T (2012) Regulating regulation? The regulatory policy of the OECD. Paper presented at the ECPR Standing Group on Regulation and Governance Conference, University of Exeter, Exeter, 27 June 2012. Available at: https://regulation.upf.edu/exeter-12-papers/Paper%20263%20-%20Jakobi%202012%20-%20Regulating%20Regulation.pdf
Jarvis D (2017) The OECD and the reconfiguration of the state in emerging economies: manufacturing ‘regulatory capacity’. Dev Chang 48(6):1386–1416
Jordão E, Cunha LF (2020) Revisão do estoque regulatório: a tendência de foco na análise de impacto regulatório retrospectiva. In Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, Belo Horizonte 80:227–255
Kingsburry et al (2019) (org.) Megaregulation contested: global economic ordering after TPP. Oxford University Press
Kjaer PF (2018) Facilitating transfers: regulatory governance frameworks as ‘rites of passage’. Contemp Polit 24(5):507–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452105
Knill C (2005) Introduction to cross-national policy convergence: concepts, approaches, and explanatory factors. Eur Public Policy 12:764074
Ladegaard Peter L, Kamkhaji J (2018) Giving Sisyphus a helping hand. Pathways for Sustainable RIA Systems in Developing Countries. World Bank Group. Available at: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/691961521463875777/giving-sisyphus-a-helping-hand-pathways-for-sustainable-ria-systems-in-developing-countries
Lang A (2019) Keeping the rules in play: the OECD’s regulatory policy initiatives. Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Theme of ‘Global Un-Governance’, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 23–24 May 2019. Available at: https://www.law.ed.ac.uk/news-events/events/interdisciplinary-workshop-theme-global-un-governance
Laursen F, Roederer-Rynning C (2017) Introduction: the new EU FTAs as contentious market regulation. J Eur Integr 39(7):763–779
Levi-Faur D, Jordana J (2006) Toward a Latin American regulatory state? The diffusion of autonomous regulatory agencies across countries and sectors. Int J Public Adm 29(4–6):335–366
Lodge M, Kai W (2012) Managing regulation: regulatory analysis, politics, and policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Lodge M, Wegrich K (2009) High-quality regulation: its popularity, tools, and future. Public Money Manage 29(3):145–152
Mahbubani K (2012) The OECD a classic sunset organisation. Global Policy 3(1):117–118
Mahon R, McBride S (eds) (2008) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver
March JG, Olsen JP (1998) The institutional dynamics of international political orders. Int Organ 52(4):943–969
Marcussen M (2004) OECD governance through soft law. In: Mörth U (ed) Soft law in governance and regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 103–128
Marsh MD, Sharman JC (2009) Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Stud 30(3):269–288
Merry SE, Davis K, Kingsbury B (2015) The quiet power of indicators: measuring governance, corruption, and rule of law. Cambridge University Press, New York
Noaksson N, Jacobsson K (2003) The production of ideas and expert knowledge in OECD. The OECD jobs strategy in contrast with the EU employment strategy. SCORE, Stockholm (Stockholms centrum för forskning om offentlig sektor). Available at: http://www.score.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.26554.1320939796!/20037.pdf
Noboru S (2004) Report by the Chair of the Heads of Delegation Working Group on the Enlargement Strategy and Outreach: A Strategy for Enlargement and Outreach OECD, 13 May 2004. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/global-relations/globalrelationsstrategy/37434513.pdf
OECD (1995) Recommendation of the Council on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, OECD/LEGAL/0278. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0278
OECD (1997) The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform Synthesis. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2391768.pdf
OECD (1998) PUMA (98)12, Public Management Service: Public Management Committee: Revised Programme of Work 1999–2000. Presented at 18th Session of the Committee, Château de la Muette, Paris, 28–29 October 1998. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=PUMA(98)12&docLanguage=En
OECD (2002) Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries: From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policies-in-oecd-countries_9789264177437-en
OECD (2007) OECD Council Resolution on Enlargement and Enhanced Engagement. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/brazil/oecdcouncilresolutiononenlargementandenhancedengagement.htm
OECD (2008) OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Brazil 2008: Strengthening Governance for Growth, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform. OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2010) Regulatory Policy at the Crossroads: Towards a New Policy Agenda. Regulatory Policy Conference Paris, OECD Conference Centre, 28–29 October 2010. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/governance/regulatorypolicy/oecdregulatorypolicyconference2010.htm
OECD (2012) Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD/LEGAL/0390. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0390
OECD (2013) International regulatory co-operation: addressing global challenges. OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2015), OECD economic surveys: Brazil 2015. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-bra-2015-en
OECD (2016) OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) for Latin America 2016. In: Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2021a) Recommendation of the Council for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation. OECD/LEGAL/0464. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0464
OECD (2021b) Davidson P., Kauffmann C., de Liedekerke M.-G. How laws and regulations affect competitiveness: The role for regulatory impact assessment, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers No. 15, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/7c11f5d5-en
OECD (2022) Regulatory Reform in Brazil, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform. OECD Publishing, Paris
Pagani F (2002) Peer review as a tool for co-operation and change. Afr Secur Rev 11(4):15–24
Pal L (2008) Inversions without end: the OECD and global public management reform. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver
Pal L (2012) Frontiers of governance: the OECD and global public management reform. Palgrave Macmillan
Ponciano I, Derek G (2016) The Development of Regulatory Management Systems in East Asia. Deconstruction, Insights, and Fostering ASEAN’s Quiet Revolution. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. Available at: https://www.eria.org/publications/the-development-of-regulatory-management-systems-in-east-asia-deconstruction-insights-and-fostering-aseans-quiet-revolution/
Porter T, Webb M (2008) Role of the OECD in the orchestration of global knowledge networks. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 43–59
Prado MM (2008) O contrato e o plano de gestão no projeto de Lei n. 3.337/04: controle desejável e justificado ou influência política indevida? Revista de Direito Público da Economia – RDPE 22:115–119
Queiroz-Cunha B, Rodrigo D (2012) Regulatory Governance in Brazil. Paper presented at the 4th Biennial ECPR Standing Group for Regulatory Governance Conference, University of Exeter, 27–29 June 2012. Available at: http://clone.osservatorioair.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/OsservAIR_QueirozCunha-Rodrigo_RegulatoryGovernanceBrazil_P4-2013.pdf
Queiroz-Cunha B, Rodrigo D (2013) Assessing Regulatory Governance and Patterns of Regulatory Reform in Brazil. Osservatorio sull’Analisi di Impatto della Regolazione. Available at: http://clone.osservatorioair.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/OsservAIR_QueirozCunha-Rodrigo_RegulatoryGovernanceBrazil_P4-2013.pdf
Querbach T, Arndt C (2017) Regulatory policy in Latin America: An analysis of the state of play, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 7, OECD Publishing, Paris, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/2cb29d8c-en
Radaelli CM (2005) Diffusion without convergence: how political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. J Eur Publ Policy 12(5):924–943
Ruggie JG (1998) What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. Int Organ 52(4):855–885
Sanchez MR (2008) O Brasil e a OCDE: uma aproximação “pelas bordas”, Textos Cindes. Available at: http://perma.cc/JU9N-4X3F
Sanchez-Badin MR, Badin A (2019) Anticorruption in Brazil: from transnational legal order to disorder. AJIL Unbound 113:326–330
Shaffer G (ed) (2013) Transnational legal ordering and state change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sunstein C (2012) The White House vs. Red Tape: A new executive order will help harmonize U.S. regulations with foreign ones, reducing costly redundancies while preserving public safety. Wall Street Journal, 5/1/2012. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304811304577369934135888006
Trubek DM et al. (2017) Brazil in the shadow of mega-regional trade and investment standards: beyond the grand debate, pragmatic responses. In: Kingsbury B et al (eds) Megaregulation contested. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 650–678
Vitale C et al (2020) The 2018 edition of the OECD PMR indicators and database: Methodological improvements and policy insights, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1604, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/2cfb622f-en
Wolfe R (2008) From reconstructing Europe to constructing globalization: the OECD in historical perspective. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 25–42
World Bank Group (2010) Better Regulation for Growth: Regulatory Governance in Developing Countries. Available at: http://regulatoryreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Regulatory-Governance-Jacobs-Ladegaard-2010.pdf.
Young AR (2015) Liberalizing trade, not exporting rules: the limits to regulatory co-ordination in the EU’s ‘new generation’ preferential trade agreements. J Eur Publ Policy 22(9):1253–1275
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fernandes, M.F.P. (2023). The OECD Good Regulatory Practices Toolbox and Brazil’s Reform Through Transnational Lenses. In: de Amstalden, M., Moran, N., Asmelash, H. (eds) International Economic Law. PEPA-SIEL 2022. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41996-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41996-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41995-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41996-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)