closing the regulatory cycle: ex post evaluation

Embedding RegulatoryPolicy in Law and Practice

Closing the regulatory cycle: ex post evaluation

©G

ettyImages

Evaluation in Regulatory Practice2000: new joint rules of procedure

§ 44 Regulatory Impacts „(7) In the explanatory memorandum for the bill, the lead Federal Ministry must statewhether 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


Evaluation in Regulatory Practice2010: evaluation of the evaluation clause

Central findings of theFederal 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

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


Evaluation in Regulatory PracticeImplementation of the 2012 procedure


Lead

Min

istr

yA

dvi

sory

Bo

ard

Fed

. Sta

t. O

ffic

eC

han

cell

ery

Evaluation of data on compliance

costs givenin the prop.

Decision of thelead ministry onmethod and point

of time forevaluation

Decision of theministry whetherconditions of the

procedure are met

Evaluation

Report on the evaluationwith reference to thetargets specified in the

proposal

Report for infor-mation

Only on demand:statistical officecould support

evaluation

+ another1 - 3 years

+ 2 years

Report for infor-mation

Regula-tion comeintoeffect


Evaluation in Regulatory Practice Statistics on the 2012 procedures

Only a few proposalscause more than 1 MioEuro p.a. compliance costsfor the business sector.

Ministries evaluate nearlyall projects beyond thethreshhold.

Parliament might ask foradditional evaluationreports in its own right.

Source: Federal Statistical Office, non-public database, as of June 2015; please note: legislative projects may refer to secondary legislation; several legislative projects may also becombined in one legislative proposal; therefore numbers vary from parliament‘s database

33

7

34

5

33

2

96

40

26 4

0

14

14 3

2

13

2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5

LEGISLATIVE PROJECTS:TO BE EVALUATED

number of legislativeprojects

thereof: number beyondthreshhold forcompliance costs (> 1Mio. Euro p.a.)

thereof: number ofintended evaluations

Evaluation in Regulatory PracticeThe parliament‘s point of view

The Bundestag receivesreports from the Federal Government accordingto the following frequency:

one-time only 68annually 35bi-annually 30every 4 years 56„frequently“ 30

Most of these reportsreflect on legal provisions©

Pre

sse-

un

d I

nfo

rmat

ion

sam

t d

er B

un

des

regi

eru

ng

Quelle: Berichtspflichten 2013/14, BT PD1



Evaluation in Regulatory Practice „evalu*“ in parliamentary documents

A growing number ofproposals in theParliament‘s databasecontain the phrase„evalu*“. The increase in ratio iseven higher than theincrease 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

22

2

18

7 21

0

21

7

22

5

19

2

15

7

81

47

28 32 4

7 62

46

67

49

21

%

15

%

15

%

22

%

28

%

24

%

43

%

60

%

2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5

LEGAL PROPOSALS IN PARLIAMENT’S DATABASE

number of proposals in the Parliament's public database

thereof: documents containing phrase "evalu*"

18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 9Source: 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-implementation 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 OutputIntermediate

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: ENVIRONMENTe.g. SOxand NOxemissions, concentration of air pollutants in urban areas 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

Alternative means for evaluating outcomese.g. www.amtlich-einfach.de


http://www.amtlich-einfach.de/

Conclusions

Available information for tracking progressA range of sources is available for facts and figures. Not all might be in the same way meaningful andself-explanatory.

Benefits of collecting and using statistical information• 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!

© is

tock

© B

un

des

regi

eru

ng


Contact

Federal ChancelleryBetter Regulation UnitWilly-Brandt-Str. 110557 BerlinGERMANY

Stephan Naundorf [email protected] www.bundesregierung.de/buerokratieabbauwww.amtlich-einfach.deTel. +49 30 18 400 1360Fax +49 30 18 400 1380

http://www.bundesregierung.de/buerokratieabbau

http://www.amtlich-einfach.de/

closing the regulatory cycle: ex post evaluation

Government & Nonprofit