Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T13:15:05.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing the Roles of Regulatory Oversight Bodies in Central and Eastern European Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2017

Katarína STAROŇOVÁ Open the ORCID record for Katarína STAROŇOVÁ [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, there is ongoing discussion about the role of regulatory oversight bodies in relation to the implementation of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs). In fact, one can witness a diffusion of regulatory oversight systems, including in CEE countries, where introduction of an RIA oversight body became part of the modernisation of the overall RIA process to become more effective. In fact, the regulatory oversight mechanism is seen as a tool for the instrumental role of regulation governance. However, this approach does not adequately explain the rationale behind setting up such a body; strategic and symbolic roles may be significant as well. This article first compares the manner in which oversight mechanisms have been institutionalised in five Central and East European countries: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. Second, it explores how differences in institutionalisation and operation shed light on understanding what stakeholders expect and understand in relation to control of RIA quality. The paper concludes that there are marked differences in regulatory oversight set-up and roles across Central and Eastern Europe, notably as a consequence of the presence or absence of internal learning.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 8 , Special Issue 4: Special Issue on the EU Public-Health-Security Nexus , December 2017 , pp. 723 - 742
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Institute of Public Policy, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University Bratislava; e-mail: katarina.staronova@fses.uniba.sk. This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency Grant no APVV-0880-12 “Knowledge Utilization in the Production of Policy Documents in the Policy Process”.

References

1 De Francesco, F, Radaelli, C and Troeger, V, “Implementing regulatory innovations in Europe: the case of impact assessment” (2012) 19(4) Journal of European Public Policy 491 Google Scholar; European Commission, Smart Regulation in the European Union, COM(2010) 543 final (Brussels, 2010)Google Scholar.

2 See studies on RIA diffusion, such as De Francesco, F, “Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Analysis Among OECD and EU Member States” (2012) 45(10) Comparative Political Studies 1277 Google Scholar; Radaelli, C, “Diffusion without convergence: how political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment” (2005) 12(5) Journal of European Public Policy 924 Google Scholar.

3 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance (Paris, OECD, 2012)Google Scholar; OECD, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015 (Paris, OECD, 2015)Google Scholar.

4 European Commission, supra, note 1.

5 See, for example, Radaelli, C, “Measuring Policy Learning: Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe” (2009) 16(8) Journal of European Public Policy 1145 Google Scholar; Radaelli, C, “Rationality, Power, Management and Symbols: Four Images of Regulatory Impact Assessment” (2010) 33(2) Scandinavian Political Studies 164 Google Scholar; Hertin, J, Jacob, K, Pesch, U and Pacchi, C, “The Production and Use of Knowledge in Regulatory Impact Assessment – An Empirical Analysis” (2009) 11 Forest Policy and Economics 413 Google Scholar; Hertin, J, Turnpenny, J et al, “Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process” (2009) A-41 Environment and Planning 1185 Google Scholar; Schrefler, L, “The Usage of Scientific Knowledge by Independent Regulatory Agencies” (2010) 23(2) Governance 309 Google Scholar; Dunlop, C et al, “The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases” (2012) 6(1) Regulation & Governance 23 Google Scholar; Rissi, C and Sager, F, “Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking” (2013) 7(3) Regulation & Governance 348 Google Scholar; Turnpenny, J, Russell, D and Rayner, T, “The complexity of evidence for sustainable development policy: analysing the boundary work of the UK Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee” (2013) 38(4) Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 586 Google Scholar; Staroňová, K, “L’institutionnalisation des etudes d’impact en Europe centrale et orientale” (2014) 149(1) Revue française d’administration publique 123 Google Scholar.

6 Boswell, C, The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research (Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar. But see also Schrefler, supra, note 5.

7 Dunlop, supra, note 5.

8 McGarity, T, Reinventing Rationality: The Role of Regulatory Analysis in the Federal Bureaucracy (Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

9 R Hahn and Robert Litan, “Improving Regulation: Start with the Analysis and Work from There” (2000) AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No 00-01; Renda, A, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State (Brussels, CEPS, 2006)Google Scholar; Staroňová, K, “Regulatory Impact Assessment: Formal Institutionalization and Practice” (2010) 30(1) Journal of Public Policy 117 Google Scholar; OECD, supra, note 3.

10 Staroňová, supra, note 9; de Francesco, F, Transnational Policy Innovation. OECD and the Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Analysis (University of Essex, ECPR Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

11 ibid.

12 OECD, supra note 3; OECD, Oversight Bodies for Regulatory Reform (Paris, OECD, 2007)Google Scholar.

13 Cordova-Novion, C and Jacobzone, Se, Strengthening the Institutional Setting for Regulatory Reform: The Experience from OECD Countries (Paris, OECD, 2011)Google Scholar; Wiener, J, “The diffusion of regulatory oversight” in MA Livermore and RL Revesz (eds), Cost-Benefit Analysis Goes Global (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

14 De Francesco, supra, note 10.

15 OECD, supra, note 3.

16 Staroňová, K, “Regulatory impact assessment in Slovakia: performance and procedural reform” (2016) 34(3) Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 214 Google Scholar.

17 Lindseth, P, Aman, A and Raul, A, “Oversight” in GA Bermann, ChH Koch and JT O’Reilly (eds), Administrative Law of the European Union (Chicago, ABA, 2008)Google Scholar.

18 Wiener, J and Alemanno, A, “Comparing regulatory oversight bodies across the Atlantic: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU” in S Rose-Ackeman and PL Lindseth (eds), Comparative Administrative Law (Edward Elgar, 2012)Google Scholar.

19 Wiener, supra, note 13.

20 Wiener and Alemanno, supra, note 18.

21 Adopted Pursuant to Art 5(3) of the Decision of the President of the EC on the establishment of an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board (C(2015) 3263 of 19 May 2015).

22 Renda, supra, note 9.

23 OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems (Paris, OECD, 2009)Google Scholar.

24 Wiener and Alemanno, supra, note 18.

25 Staroňová, supra, note 5.

26 Wiener and Alemanno, supra, note 18.

27 Radaelli, supra, note 9.

28 ibid.

29 Boswell, supra, note 6.

30 Hertin, supra, note 5.

31 Boswell, supra, note 6.

32 Radaelli, supra, note 5.

33 Wiener and Alemanno, supra, note 18.

34 P Davies, “Is Evidence-Based Government Possible?” Jerry Lee Lecture 2004, presented to the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC, 19 February 2004.

35 Wiener and Alemanno, supra, note 18, 311.

36 Staroňová, supra, notes 5 and 16.

37 Interview with Estonian advisor to the Auditor General, Talinn, 19 September 2014.

38 Interview with Slovenian officer from Audit Office, Ljubljana, 6 June 2014.

39 Staroňová, supra, note 9.

40 Interview with Czech RIA committee member, Prague, 10 April 2015.

41 Interview with Hungarian former head of ECOSTAT, Budapest, 21 May 2014.

42 Interview with former head of ECOSTAT, Budapest, 21 May 2014.

43 Interview with former head of RIA unit, Prague, 10 April 2015.

44 Interview with former head of ECOSTAT, Budapest, 21 May 2014.

45 Interview with Hungarian think tank representative, Budapest, 22 May 2014.

46 Staroňová, supra, note 16.

47 Staroňová, supra, note 9.

48 Interview with Estonian head of the Government Office Strategic Unit, Tallinn, 16 September 2014.

49 Interview with Slovenian civil servant, Ljubljana, 5 June 2014.

50 Interview with Czech RIA Committee member, Prague, 10 April 2015.

51 Interview with Estonian RIA oversight representative in the Ministry of Justice, Tallinn, 19 September 2014.

52 Interview with Estonian RIA oversight representative, Tallinn, 19 September 2014.

53 Interview with Hungarian think tank representative, Budapest, 21 May 2014.

54 Interview with Estonian RIA oversight analyst, Tallinn, 7 March 2017.

55 Ibid.

56 Staroňová, supra, note 16.

57 OECD, supra, note 12; De Francesco, supra, note 2.

58 Dunlop, supra, note 5.

59 In Estonia the phenomenon of informal networks was also shown by Randma-Liiv, T, Uudelepp, A and Sarapuu, K, “From network to hierarchy: the evolution of the Estonian senior civil service development system” (2015) 81(2) International Review of Administrative Sciences 373 Google Scholar.

60 Shown also by Gajduschek, G, “Measuring Cross-Sectorial Law Enforcement Capacity of Regulatory Agencies in Hungary” (2015) 11(44) Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 108 Google Scholar.