No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Post-crisis Emergency Legislation Consolidation: Regulatory Quality Principles for Good Times Only?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2023
Abstract
This article analyses how emergency legislation has affected law-making and regulatory quality principles (RQPs) before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2021) from stakeholders’ perspectives. It takes Slovakia as a case study, as this country was considered a high performer in the adoption of RQPs before the crisis, while empirical findings suggest a subsequent decline in their use. We argue that formal RQPs are not deeply embedded and are vulnerable to crises. In doing so, we conceptually distinguish between standard (fully following the RQPs), emergency (modified to accommodate crisis) and non-standard law-making (violating formal rules and the RQPs). In the transition from a crisis to a post-crisis context, the deployment of both emergency and non-standard law-making has become relatively permanent without proper justification having been provided. This reinforces the notion that RQPs and governance legitimacy became less important for the executive than in the pre-crisis period and emergency and non-standard regulatory law-making became institutionalised as new norms of swift law-making. All of these factors prevent stakeholders from being informed and from engaging in deliberation, which jeopardises the legitimacy of post-crisis law-making governance.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 S Kuhlmann et al, “Opportunity Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Testing the Crisis from a Global Perspective” (2021) 87 International Review of Administrative Sciences 497; T Christensen and P Lægreid, “Balancing Governance Capacity and Legitimacy: How the Norwegian Government Handled the COVID-19 Crisis as a High Performer” (2020) 80 Public Administration Review 774; MJ Moon, “Fighting COVID-19 with Agility, Transparency, and Participation: Wicked Policy Problems and New Governance Challenges” (2020) 80 Public Administration Review 651.
2 O Rubin et al, “The Challenges Facing Evidence-Based Decision Making in the Initial Response to COVID-19” (2021) 49 Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 790; P Cairney, “The UK Government’s COVID-19 Policy: Assessing Evidence-Informed Policy Analysis in Real Time” (2021) 16 British Politics 90.
3 H Kassim, “The European Commission and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pluri-institutional Approach” (2023) 30 Journal of European Public Policy 612.
4 A Alemanno, “Taming COVID-19 by Regulation: An Opportunity for Self-Reflection” (2020) 11 European Journal of Risk Regulation 187; R Cormacain, “Keeping Covid-19 Emergency Legislation Socially Distant from Ordinary Legislation: Principles for the Structure of Emergency Legislation” (2020) 8 The Theory and Practice of Legislation 1.
5 OECD, “Regulatory Policy in the Slovak Republic: Towards Future-Proof Regulation” (2020).
6 ibid; M Sloboda, K Staroňová and AP Suchalova, “Enhancing Law-Making Efficiency, Public Value or Both: Case Study of e-Participation Platform in Slovakia” in T Randma-Liiv and V Lember (eds), Engaging Citizens in Policy Making (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing 2022).
7 Y Papadopoulos, “Cooperative Forms of Governance: Problems of Democratic Accountability in Complex Environments” (2003) 42(4) European Journal of Political Research 484.
8 V Schmidt and M Wood, “Conceptualizing Throughput Legitimacy: Procedural Mechanisms of Accountability, Transparency, Inclusiveness and Openness in EU Governance” (2019) 97 Public Administration 727.
9 European Commission, “Completing the Better Regulation Agenda: Better Solutions for Better Results” (2017); OECD, “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance: Design, Methodology and Key Results” (2015); A Bunea and J Chrisp, “Reconciling Participatory and Evidence-Based Policymaking in the EU Better Regulation Policy: Mission (Im)Possible?” (2022) Journal of European Integration 1; Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, “Final Report” (2001).
10 Bunea and Chrisp, supra, note 9; S Rose-Ackerman, Democracy and Executive Power: Policymaking Accountability in the US, the UK, Germany, and France (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press 2021); C Braun and M Busuioc, “Stakeholder Engagement as a Conduit for Regulatory Legitimacy?” (2020) 27 Journal of European Public Policy 1599; C Koop and M Lodge, “British Economic Regulators in an Age of Politicisation: From the Responsible to the Responsive Regulatory State?” (2020) 27 Journal of European Public Policy 1612; SE Dudley and K Wegrich, “The Role of Transparency in Regulatory Governance: Comparing US and EU Regulatory Systems” (2016) 19 Journal of Risk Research 1141; CM Radaelli and F De Francesco, Regulatory Quality in Europe: Concepts, Measures and Policy Processes (Manchester, Manchester University Press 2007).
11 Dudley and Wegrich, supra, note 10.
12 Schmidt and Wood, supra, note 8.
13 A Fung, “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance” (2006) 66 Public Administration Review 66; Braun and Busuioc, supra, note 10.
14 M Røed and V Wøien Hansen, “Explaining Participation Bias in the European Commission’s Online Consultations: The Struggle for Policy Gain without Too Much Pain” (2018) 56 Journal of Common Market Studies 1446; P Davis and A Flynn, “Explaining SME Participation and Success in Public Procurement Using a Capability-Based Model of Tendering” (2017) 17(3) Journal of Public Procurement 337; Radaelli and De Francesco, supra, note 10.
15 Fung, supra, note 13; Braun and Busuioc, supra, note 10.
16 Radaelli and De Francesco, supra, note 10.
17 G Base, “Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Practical Implications” (2020) 15 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 95.
18 ibid.
19 Dudley and Wegrich, supra, note 10; A Bianculli, J Jordana and X Fernández-i-Marín, Accountability and Regulatory Governance: Audiences, Controls and Responsibilities in the Politics of Regulation (London, Palgrave Macmillan 2015).
20 J Mansbridge, “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation” (2009) 17(4) Journal of Political Philosophy 369–98.
21 J De Fine Licht, D Naurin, P Esaiasson and M Gilljam, “When Does Transparency Generate Legitimacy? Experimenting on a Context-Bound Relationship” (2014) 27(1) Governance 111–34.
22 T Risse and E Stollenwerk, “Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood” (2018) 21 Annual Review of Political Science 403.
23 C Coglianese, “The Internet and Citizen Participation in Rulemaking” (2005) 1 Journal of Law & Policy for the Information Society 33; Sloboda et al, supra, note 6.
24 T Christensen, P Lægreid and LH Rykkja, “Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy” (2016) 76 Public Administration Review 887.
25 De Fine Licht et al, supra, note 21.
26 JS Dryzek and A Tucker, “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States” (2008) 68 Public Administration Review 864; SG Grimmelikhuijsen, “Transparency of Public Decision-Making: Towards Trust in Local Government?” (2010) 2 Policy & Internet 5; G Porumbescu, “Linking Transparency to Trust in Government and Voice” (2017) 47 The American Review of Public Administration 520.
27 Cormacain, supra, note 4.
28 Alemanno, supra, note 4; OECD, “Regulatory Quality and COVID-19: The Use of Regulatory Management Tools in a Time of Crisis” (2020).
29 D Bohle et al, “Riding the Covid Waves: Authoritarian Socio-economic Responses of East Central Europe’s Anti-liberal Governments” (2022) 38 East European Politics 662.
30 Alemanno, supra, note 4; Rubin et al, supra, note 3.
31 N Bolleyer and O Salát, “Parliaments in Times of Crisis: COVID-19, Populism and Executive Dominance” (2021) 44 West European Politics 1103; Bohle et al, supra, note 29.
32 Bohle et al, supra, note 29.
33 K Jonski and W Rogowski, “Evidence-Based Policymaking during the COVID-19 Crisis: Regulatory Impact Assessments and the Polish COVID-19 Restrictions” (2023) 14(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation 65–77; G Hajnal, I Jeziorska and É Kovács, “Understanding drivers of illiberal entrenchment at critical junctures: institutional responses to COVID-19 in Hungary and Poland” (2021) 87(3) International Review of Administrative Sciences 612.
34 E Griglio, “Parliamentary Oversight under the Covid-19 Emergency: Striving against Executive Dominance” (2020) 8 The Theory and Practice of Legislation 49.
35 Alemanno, supra, note 4; Cormacain, supra, note 4.
36 OECD, supra, note 28.
37 The effectiveness of this nationwide testing is analysed in M Pavelka, “The Effectiveness of Population-Wide, Rapid Antigen Test-Based Screening in Reducing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Prevalence in Slovakia” (2021) 372(6542) Science 635–41.
38 R Hudec, “Policy Advisory Systems in Times of Crisis: A Case Study of Slovak Advisory Committees during Covid-19” (2023) 16(1) NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 58–80.
39 Legislative Rules of the Government of the Slovak republic (2020) <https://www.vlada.gov.sk/data/files/7912_uplne-znenie-legpravvladysr-v-zneni-uzn-vlsr-z-15-jula-2020-c-466.pdf?csrt=57988010207578382>.
40 Cormacain, supra, note 4.
41 For a detailed discussion of these reforms, see K Staroňová, “Regulatory Impact Assessment in Slovakia: Performance and Procedural Reform” (2016) 34 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 1; Sloboda et al, supra, note 6.
42 OECD, supra, note 5.
43 From 25 November 2021 until 22 February 2022, a third state of emergency was declared. However, we treat this period as early post-crisis, as we align with Rosenthal et al’s understanding of the crisis, which denotes a crisis period as one of perceived threat that requires urgent remedial action under conditions of high uncertainty: U Rosenthal, MT Charles and P ‘t Hart, “The world of crises and crisis management” in U Rosenthal, MT Charles and P ‘t Hart (eds), Coping with Crises (Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas 1989). One and a half years into the pandemic and after third round of vaccination, we posit that a shift of focus from crisis mobilisation to stabilisation occurred, leading to a new set of more enduring, more strategic goals that required societal deliberation.
44 Base, supra, note 17.
45 OECD, supra, note 5.
46 Cormacain, supra, note 4.
47 RIA Committee, Methodological Guide for Training Purposes (Bratislava, Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic 2022).
48 Bolleyer and Salát, supra, note 31.
49 OECD, supra, note 5.
50 S Farkašová, “Občianska Participácia v Slovenskom Legislatívnom Procese” (2020) 8 Mladá veda 79.
51 V Anghel and E Jones, “Riders on the Storm: The Politics of Disruption in European Member States during the COVID-19 Pandemic” (2022) 38 East European Politics 551; Bohle et al, supra, note 29; T Drinóczi and A Bień-Kacała, “COVID-19 in Hungary and Poland: Extraordinary Situation and Illiberal Constitutionalism” (2020) 8 The Theory and Practice of Legislation 171.
52 M Klíma, Informal Politics in Post-Communist Europe: Political Parties, Clientelism and State Capture (London, Routledge 2019); Sloboda et al, supra, note 6.
53 Røed and Wøien Hansen, supra, note 14.
54 Schmidt and Wood, supra, note 8.
55 Bohle et al, supra, note 29; Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała, supra, note 51; Jonski and Rogowski, supra, note 33; Hajnal and others, supra, note 33.
56 A Boin, M Lodge and M Luesink, “Learning from the COVID-19 Crisis: An Initial Analysis of National Responses” (2020) 3 Policy Design and Practice 189.
57 JE Grindheim, “Why Right-Leaning Populism Has Grown in the Most Advanced Liberal Democracies of Europe” (2019) 90 The Political Quarterly 757.
58 Anghel and Jones, supra, note 51; Bohle et al, supra, note 29; Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała, supra, note 51.
59 S Dodsworth and N Cheeseman, Political Trust: The Glue That Keeps Democracies Together (London, Westminster Foundation for Democracy 2023).
Staronova et al. supplementary material
Tables S1-S4
File
17.9 KB