Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the UK: Old Questions and New Findings

O. Fritsch, C. Radaelli, Lorna Schrefler, A. Renda
{"title":"Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the UK: Old Questions and New Findings","authors":"O. Fritsch, C. Radaelli, Lorna Schrefler, A. Renda","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1996489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the quality of impact assessments in the European Commission and the United Kingdom for the period 2005-2010. We coded 477 impact assessments for the UK and 251 for the European Commission, using a detailed scorecard - adjusted to reduce the bias evidenced by previous usages of this instrument. The findings suggest that impact assessment is not merely a perfunctory activity in the European Union and the UK. Quality has improved steadily over the years, arguably as a result of learning and regulatory oversight. The UK and the European Commission are strikingly similar on a number of impact assessment dimensions (such as economic analysis \nand identification of costs and benefits). The impact assessments of the European Commission seem to pay more attention to social and environmental aspects, however. The \nconclusions reflect on the implications of our findings for current policy discussions on regulatory quality and the role of regulatory oversight bodies.","PeriodicalId":302242,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Regulation (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Regulation (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1996489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This paper examines the quality of impact assessments in the European Commission and the United Kingdom for the period 2005-2010. We coded 477 impact assessments for the UK and 251 for the European Commission, using a detailed scorecard - adjusted to reduce the bias evidenced by previous usages of this instrument. The findings suggest that impact assessment is not merely a perfunctory activity in the European Union and the UK. Quality has improved steadily over the years, arguably as a result of learning and regulatory oversight. The UK and the European Commission are strikingly similar on a number of impact assessment dimensions (such as economic analysis and identification of costs and benefits). The impact assessments of the European Commission seem to pay more attention to social and environmental aspects, however. The conclusions reflect on the implications of our findings for current policy discussions on regulatory quality and the role of regulatory oversight bodies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟委员会和英国的监管质量:老问题和新发现
本文考察了2005-2010年期间欧盟委员会和英国的影响评估质量。我们对英国的477项影响评估和欧盟委员会的251项影响评估进行了编码,使用详细的记分卡进行了调整,以减少该工具以前的使用所证明的偏见。研究结果表明,在欧盟和英国,影响评估不仅仅是一项敷衍了事的活动。多年来,质量稳步提高,可以说是学习和监管监督的结果。英国和欧盟委员会在许多影响评估方面(如经济分析和成本和收益的确定)惊人地相似。然而,欧盟委员会的影响评估似乎更关注社会和环境方面。结论反映了我们的研究结果对当前关于监管质量和监管监督机构作用的政策讨论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Incentives and Communication Costs on Information Production and Use: Evidence from Bank Lending Reserves, Liquidity and Money: An Assessment of Balance Sheet Policies State Aid to Business in the European Union: A Focus on the Car Sector A Conceptual Framework for Efficient Design of Counter-Obligations in Government Contracts and Licenses Banks’ Reactions to Basel-III
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1