Closing the regulatory cycle: Ex post evaluation
1 like776 views
The document discusses the importance of embedding regulatory policy evaluation into law and practice, specifically focusing on ex post evaluation to ensure regulatory impacts are assessed effectively. It highlights challenges in compliance with evaluation requirements, the need for systematic evaluations, and the role of various ministries and parliamentary oversight in this process. The conclusions emphasize the necessity of appropriate data for tracking progress and the ongoing need to improve evaluation practices for better regulatory outcomes.
Closing the regulatory cycle: Ex post evaluation
- 1. Embedding Regulatory Policy in Law and Practice Closing the regulatory cycle: ex post evaluation ©GettyImages
- 2. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice 2000: new joint rules of procedure § 44 Regulatory Impacts „(7) In the explanatory memorandum for the bill, the lead Federal Ministry must state whether and, if so, after what period of time, a review is to be held to verify whether the in- tended effects have been achieved, whether the costs incurred are reaso- nably proportionnate to the results, and what side- effects have arisen.“ © Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 2
- 3. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 3 Evaluation in Regulatory Practice 2010: evaluation of the evaluation clause Central findings of the Federal Performance Commissioner: • only a few drafts comply with § 44 (7) • no positive trend • about 2 % of drafts call for evaluation • unclear provision Source: Report of the Federal Performance Commissioner 2010: „Opinion on steps taken to enhance regulation and improve legislation in place“ number of legal drafts issued by the Federal Government number thereof with information regarding evaluation
- 4. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice 2012: cabinet calls for systematic evaluation Three to five years after essential new rules come into effect, the lead ministry starts to evaluate the actual impact of the law with reference to the targets specified in the proposal; it reports to the Federal Coordinator and to the Regulatory Control Council Source: Cabinet decision as of 28 March 2012 © Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 4
- 5. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice Implementation of the 2012 procedure 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 5 LeadMinistryAdvisoryBoardFed.Stat.OfficeChancellery Evaluation of data on compliance costs given in the prop. Decision of the lead ministry on method and point of time for evaluation Decision of the ministry whether conditions of the procedure are met Evaluation Report on the evaluation with reference to the targets specifiedinthe proposal Report for infor- mation Only on demand: statistical office could support evaluation + another 1 - 3 years + 2 years Report for infor- mation Regula- tion come into effect
- 6. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 6 Evaluation in Regulatory Practice Statistics on the 2012 procedures Only a few proposals cause more than 1 Mio Euro p.a. compliance costs for the business sector. Ministries evaluate nearly all projects beyond the threshhold. Parliament might ask for additional evaluation reports in its own right. Source: Federal Statistical Office, non-public database, as of June 2015; please note: legislativeprojectsmayrefertosecondarylegislation;severallegislativeprojectsmayalsobe combined in one legislative proposal; therefore numbers vary from parliament‘s database 337 345 332 96 40 26 40 14 14 32 13 2012 2013 2014 2015 LEGISLATIVE PROJECTS: TO BE EVALUATED number of legislative projects thereof: number beyond threshhold for compliance costs (> 1 Mio. Euro p.a.) thereof: number of intended evaluations
- 7. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice The parliament‘s point of view The Bundestag receives reports from the Federal Government according to the followingfrequency: one-time only 68 annually 35 bi-annually 30 every 4 years 56 „frequently“ 30 Most of these reports reflect on legal provisions ©Presse-undInformationsamtderBundesregierung Quelle: Berichtspflichten 2013/14, BT PD1 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 7
- 8. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 8 Evaluation in Regulatory Practice „evalu*“ in parliamentary documents A growing number of proposals in the Parliament‘s database contain the phrase „evalu*“. The increase in ratio is even higher than the increase of numbers. Increase can not be ex- plained by the govern- ment‘s decision only. See: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21.web/searchDocuments/drs_search.do 222 187 210 217 225 192 157 81 47 28 32 47 62 46 67 49 21% 15% 15% 22% 28% 24% 43% 60% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 LEGAL PROPOSALS IN PARLIAMENT’S DATABASE number of proposals in the Parliament's public database thereof: documents containing phrase "evalu*"
- 9. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 9 Source: OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, 2014, p. 34 Evaluation in Regulatory Practice Implementation is not an end in itself Have the good practices been implemented ? E.g. percentage of RIAs that comply with formal requirements e.g. quality of post- implementatio n reviews Are requirements for good regulatory practices in place? E.g. requirements for objective- setting, consultation, evidence- based analysis, simplification, risk assessments (e.g. indicators of regulatory management type), aligning regulatory changes internationally What resources are committed? E.g. budget, staffing, expertise Have good practices helped to get quality regulation? E.g. % of those involved in the regulatory process that think RIA has improved the quality of regulation as opposed to being a tick-the box-exercise; comparison of costs/benefits of initial regulatory proposal to those of actual regulation that was passed • Regulatory system • Regulatory impacts • Other factors that influence outcome Feedback loop Input Process Output Intermediate outcome Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in general been achieved? Economic: Net benefits (possibly in comparison with counterfactual and alternatives) Efficient and streamlined: Compliance costs and burdens (possibly integrated into net benefits; Reduced enforcement costs) Perception of regulatory quality in general Improved compliance rate Transparent and easy to access Regulatory quality Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in a specific sector been achieved? Effectiveness – market failure/problem/risk was solved or mitigated Protection and benefits of the public, responsive and accountable Facts-based and perception based sector-specific indicators: ENVIRONMENT e.g. SOxandNOxemissions,concentrationofairpollutantsinurbanareas SAFETY HEALTH Regulatory outcomes Set strategic objectives for regulatory policy in general Set strategic objectives for regulatory policy in specific sectors (e.g. Health, Environment , Education) Design Implementation Strategic outcome I II III IV V easy hard
- 10. Alternative means for evaluating outcomes e.g. www.amtlich-einfach.de 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 10
- 11. Conclusions Available information for tracking progress A range of sources is available for facts and figures. Not all might be in the same way meaningful and self-explanatory. Benefitsofcollectingandusingstatisticalinformation • Oversight is based on appropriate data. • Data are not an end in itself: impulses count. • Data have the potential to change politics. Challenges to be adressed • Evaluation is „extra-work“: effective incentives? • Constant flow of reports: attention for evaluation? • systematic, feasible evalution: better outcomes! ©istock©Bundesregierung 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 11
- 12. Contact Federal Chancellery Better Regulation Unit Willy-Brandt-Str. 1 10557 Berlin GERMANY Stephan Naundorf buerokratieabbau@bk.bund.de www.bundesregierung.de/buerokratieabbau www.amtlich-einfach.de Tel. +49 30 18 400 1360 Fax +49 30 18 400 1380