European banking law restrictions have so far prevented “alternative lending solutions”, such as debt funds and crowdlending platforms, to operate on a Pan-European scale. Consequently, crowdlending platforms currently do not benefit from a European passport and are restricted in attracting investors and projects on a cross-border basis. Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 (the “CFR”), which will enter into force in November 2021, will change this. As debt funds face similar restrictions in originating loans on a Pan-European basis, this contribution analyzes the opportunities for debt funds and their alternative investment fund managers (“AIFMs”) offered by the CFR.
{"title":"The Crowdfunding Regulation: Opportunities for Debt Fund Managers","authors":"Sebastiaan Niels Hooghiemstra","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3822983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3822983","url":null,"abstract":"European banking law restrictions have so far prevented “alternative lending solutions”, such as debt funds and crowdlending platforms, to operate on a Pan-European scale. Consequently, crowdlending platforms currently do not benefit from a European passport and are restricted in attracting investors and projects on a cross-border basis. Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 (the “CFR”), which will enter into force in November 2021, will change this. As debt funds face similar restrictions in originating loans on a Pan-European basis, this contribution analyzes the opportunities for debt funds and their alternative investment fund managers (“AIFMs”) offered by the CFR.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121853493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The internet used to be considered as a catalyst of positive social change. Yet such claims have become rare. Structured as a document for action in four steps, this report seeks to provide a rough compass for those trying to understand the underlying causes of much of what is problematic with the internet and the web today. I argue that paying attention to who shapes internet traffic (and how) is crucial. It will allow us to understand the connection between issues often considered unrelated (such as net neutrality and misinformation), as well as to anticipate challenges that are yet to emerge.
Step 1: Understanding the context: How the internet came to be seated on the defendant’s bench. Here I describe how the inventors and developers of the internet and the web upheld the principle of decentralization to ensure the network was robust in the face of failure, and how this sparked hope for systematically excluded groups that had long been marginalized from public debate. I then describe four types of problems for which the web is often considered responsible, and explain the subset of these that I believe can be resolved through digital policies, narrowing the scope of this report to the issue of centralization.
Step 2: Understanding the present and future risks triggered by a centralized information system. Here I describe how the internet and the web have been centralized. I explain how, given the characteristics of the process of centralization, the ongoing deployment of connected devices (also known as internet of things), as well as the growing developments in the fields of augmented reality and virtual reality are likely going to fuel the process of centralization further. Lastly, focusing on search and person-to-person communications, I explore the types of risks centralization poses to the present and future of our political system.
Step 3: Deploying the Neutrality Pyramid framework in order to redistribute power. Here I present the Neutrality Pyramid, a framework around which we can rally to neutralize the process of centralization and reduce the scope of power of the incumbent gatekeepers. After explaining how and why the framework builds upon and extends the definition of net neutrality to other layers of the stack, I describe the technological, regulatory and activist actions taking place around the globe to forward and enforce the principles of net neutrality, device neutrality, platform neutrality and personal control over personal data.
Step 4: Enabling robust public deliberation towards a positive agenda. I go beyond negative actions and explain how the Neutrality Pyramid can enable the development of a positive agenda. I explain that even though the neutrality principle presupposes a hands-off approach, it does include a set of exceptions enshrined by law. I argue that we should leverage the process of defining such exceptions as a means to ensure the institutions of democracy play a rol
{"title":"The Neutrality Pyramid: A Policy Framework to Distribute Power Over the Net","authors":"Juan Ortiz Freuler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3802263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3802263","url":null,"abstract":"The internet used to be considered as a catalyst of positive social change. Yet such claims have become rare. Structured as a document for action in four steps, this report seeks to provide a rough compass for those trying to understand the underlying causes of much of what is problematic with the internet and the web today. I argue that paying attention to who shapes internet traffic (and how) is crucial. It will allow us to understand the connection between issues often considered unrelated (such as net neutrality and misinformation), as well as to anticipate challenges that are yet to emerge. <br><br>Step 1: Understanding the context: How the internet came to be seated on the defendant’s bench.<br>Here I describe how the inventors and developers of the internet and the web upheld the principle of decentralization to ensure the network was robust in the face of failure, and how this sparked hope for systematically excluded groups that had long been marginalized from public debate. I then describe four types of problems for which the web is often considered responsible, and explain the subset of these that I believe can be resolved through digital policies, narrowing the scope of this report to the issue of centralization.<br><br>Step 2: Understanding the present and future risks triggered by a centralized information system.<br>Here I describe how the internet and the web have been centralized. I explain how, given the characteristics of the process of centralization, the ongoing deployment of connected devices (also known as internet of things), as well as the growing developments in the fields of augmented reality and virtual reality are likely going to fuel the process of centralization further. Lastly, focusing on search and person-to-person communications, I explore the types of risks centralization poses to the present and future of our political system.<br><br>Step 3: Deploying the Neutrality Pyramid framework in order to redistribute power. <br>Here I present the Neutrality Pyramid, a framework around which we can rally to neutralize the process of centralization and reduce the scope of power of the incumbent gatekeepers. After explaining how and why the framework builds upon and extends the definition of net neutrality to other layers of the stack, I describe the technological, regulatory and activist actions taking place around the globe to forward and enforce the principles of net neutrality, device neutrality, platform neutrality and personal control over personal data.<br><br>Step 4: Enabling robust public deliberation towards a positive agenda.<br>I go beyond negative actions and explain how the Neutrality Pyramid can enable the development of a positive agenda. I explain that even though the neutrality principle presupposes a hands-off approach, it does include a set of exceptions enshrined by law. I argue that we should leverage the process of defining such exceptions as a means to ensure the institutions of democracy play a rol","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132773212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
John R.J. Thompson, Longlong Feng, R. Reesor, Chuck Grace
In Canada, financial advisors and dealers are required by provincial securities commissions and self-regulatory organizations—charged with direct regulation over investment dealers and mutual fund dealers—to respectively collect and maintain know your client (KYC) information, such as their age or risk tolerance, for investor accounts. With this information, investors, under their advisor’s guidance, make decisions on their investments that are presumed to be beneficial to their investment goals. Our unique dataset is provided by a financial investment dealer with over 50,000 accounts for over 23,000 clients covering the period from January 1st to August 12th 2019. We use a modified behavioral finance recency, frequency, monetary model for engineering features that quantify investor behaviours, and unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithms to find groups of investors that behave similarly. We show that the KYC information—such as gender, residence region, and marital status—does not explain client behaviours, whereas eight variables for trade and transaction frequency and volume are most informative. Hence, our results should encourage financial regulators and advisors to use more advanced metrics to better understand and predict investor behaviours.
{"title":"Know Your Clients' Behaviours: A Cluster Analysis of Financial Transactions","authors":"John R.J. Thompson, Longlong Feng, R. Reesor, Chuck Grace","doi":"10.3390/jrfm14020050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020050","url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, financial advisors and dealers are required by provincial securities commissions and self-regulatory organizations—charged with direct regulation over investment dealers and mutual fund dealers—to respectively collect and maintain know your client (KYC) information, such as their age or risk tolerance, for investor accounts. With this information, investors, under their advisor’s guidance, make decisions on their investments that are presumed to be beneficial to their investment goals. Our unique dataset is provided by a financial investment dealer with over 50,000 accounts for over 23,000 clients covering the period from January 1st to August 12th 2019. We use a modified behavioral finance recency, frequency, monetary model for engineering features that quantify investor behaviours, and unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithms to find groups of investors that behave similarly. We show that the KYC information—such as gender, residence region, and marital status—does not explain client behaviours, whereas eight variables for trade and transaction frequency and volume are most informative. Hence, our results should encourage financial regulators and advisors to use more advanced metrics to better understand and predict investor behaviours.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"23 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141206067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
John R.J. Thompson, Longlong Feng, R. Reesor, Chuck Grace
In Canada, financial advisors and dealers are required by provincial securities commissions and self-regulatory organizations—charged with direct regulation over investment dealers and mutual fund dealers—to respectively collect and maintain know your client (KYC) information, such as their age or risk tolerance, for investor accounts. With this information, investors, under their advisor’s guidance, make decisions on their investments that are presumed to be beneficial to their investment goals. Our unique dataset is provided by a financial investment dealer with over 50,000 accounts for over 23,000 clients covering the period from January 1st to August 12th 2019. We use a modified behavioral finance recency, frequency, monetary model for engineering features that quantify investor behaviours, and unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithms to find groups of investors that behave similarly. We show that the KYC information—such as gender, residence region, and marital status—does not explain client behaviours, whereas eight variables for trade and transaction frequency and volume are most informative. Hence, our results should encourage financial regulators and advisors to use more advanced metrics to better understand and predict investor behaviours.
{"title":"Know Your Clients' Behaviours: A Cluster Analysis of Financial Transactions","authors":"John R.J. Thompson, Longlong Feng, R. Reesor, Chuck Grace","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3595433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3595433","url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, financial advisors and dealers are required by provincial securities commissions and self-regulatory organizations—charged with direct regulation over investment dealers and mutual fund dealers—to respectively collect and maintain know your client (KYC) information, such as their age or risk tolerance, for investor accounts. With this information, investors, under their advisor’s guidance, make decisions on their investments that are presumed to be beneficial to their investment goals. Our unique dataset is provided by a financial investment dealer with over 50,000 accounts for over 23,000 clients covering the period from January 1st to August 12th 2019. We use a modified behavioral finance recency, frequency, monetary model for engineering features that quantify investor behaviours, and unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithms to find groups of investors that behave similarly. We show that the KYC information—such as gender, residence region, and marital status—does not explain client behaviours, whereas eight variables for trade and transaction frequency and volume are most informative. Hence, our results should encourage financial regulators and advisors to use more advanced metrics to better understand and predict investor behaviours.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132316196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-09-01DOI: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2017.05.006
Per L. Bylund, Matthew McCaffrey
{"title":"A Theory of Entrepreneurship and Institutional Uncertainty","authors":"Per L. Bylund, Matthew McCaffrey","doi":"10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2017.05.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2017.05.006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"29 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120162440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital technologies have profoundly changed not only the ways we create, distribute, access, use and re-use information but also many of the governance structures we had in place. Overall, "older" institutions at all governance levels have grappled and often failed to master the multi-faceted and multi-directional issues of the Internet. Regulatory entrepreneurs have yet to discover and fully mobilize the potential of digital technologies as an influential factor impacting upon the regulability of the environment and as a potential regulatory tool in themselves. At the same time, we have seen a deterioration of some public spaces and lower prioritization of public objectives, when strong private commercial interests are at play, such as most tellingly in the field of copyright. Less tangibly, private ordering has taken hold and captured through contracts spaces, previously regulated by public law. Code embedded in technology often replaces law. Non-state action has in general proliferated and put serious pressure upon conventional state-centered, command-and-control models.Under the conditions of this "messy" governance, the provision of key public goods, such as freedom of information, has been made difficult or is indeed jeopardized.The grand question is how can we navigate this complex multi-actor, multi-issue space and secure the attainment of fundamental public interest objectives. This is also the question that Ian Brown and Chris Marsden seek to answer with their book, Regulating Code, as recently published under the "Information Revolution and Global Politics" series of MIT Press.This book review critically assesses the bold effort by Brown and Marsden.
{"title":"Book Review: Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age","authors":"Mira Burri","doi":"10.7892/BORIS.51583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7892/BORIS.51583","url":null,"abstract":"Digital technologies have profoundly changed not only the ways we create, distribute, access, use and re-use information but also many of the governance structures we had in place. Overall, \"older\" institutions at all governance levels have grappled and often failed to master the multi-faceted and multi-directional issues of the Internet. Regulatory entrepreneurs have yet to discover and fully mobilize the potential of digital technologies as an influential factor impacting upon the regulability of the environment and as a potential regulatory tool in themselves. At the same time, we have seen a deterioration of some public spaces and lower prioritization of public objectives, when strong private commercial interests are at play, such as most tellingly in the field of copyright. Less tangibly, private ordering has taken hold and captured through contracts spaces, previously regulated by public law. Code embedded in technology often replaces law. Non-state action has in general proliferated and put serious pressure upon conventional state-centered, command-and-control models.Under the conditions of this \"messy\" governance, the provision of key public goods, such as freedom of information, has been made difficult or is indeed jeopardized.The grand question is how can we navigate this complex multi-actor, multi-issue space and secure the attainment of fundamental public interest objectives. This is also the question that Ian Brown and Chris Marsden seek to answer with their book, Regulating Code, as recently published under the \"Information Revolution and Global Politics\" series of MIT Press.This book review critically assesses the bold effort by Brown and Marsden.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133337170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prior to his death, Wassily Leontief, the Father of Input-Output economics, had been working on a modification of his econometric model to make it more applicable as a tool for investigating the impact of capital investments made in one sector on the rest of the entire economy. In his last published modification of his earlier celebrated article, The Economy as a Circular Flow, (Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 2, Issue 1, June 1991, Pages 181-212), Leontief was using the model to visualize market relationships between capital and the rest of the economy. His starting point for the new treatment was to “close” his matrix of capital coefficients away from the rest of the model of the economy in order to investigate the effects of changing the magnitude of capital investments at any point in time.
{"title":"The Crowd Funding Business Bonanza for Lawyers, Accountants and Consultants: Professional Business Advisors about to Surf a Financial Tsunami of New Crowd Funding Business","authors":"Laurie Thomas Vass","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2248729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2248729","url":null,"abstract":"Prior to his death, Wassily Leontief, the Father of Input-Output economics, had been working on a modification of his econometric model to make it more applicable as a tool for investigating the impact of capital investments made in one sector on the rest of the entire economy. In his last published modification of his earlier celebrated article, The Economy as a Circular Flow, (Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 2, Issue 1, June 1991, Pages 181-212), Leontief was using the model to visualize market relationships between capital and the rest of the economy. His starting point for the new treatment was to “close” his matrix of capital coefficients away from the rest of the model of the economy in order to investigate the effects of changing the magnitude of capital investments at any point in time.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132789953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We don’t want a "Mother, may I?" regulatory regime for innovation. A regulatory regime that requires permission to enter the market or develop a new product is a problem for innovation because it relies on the government, not the innovator, to decide the course of innovation. Giving private entities "Mother, may I?" control over entry is no better; while market competition is efficient, private decisions by a single actor controlling a market generally aren't.Unfortunately, IP law increasingly looks like a regulatory regime, not a common law mechanism for internalizing social costs. The Copyright Act has more and more regulatory characteristics, and copyright owners increasingly seek to put the government in the position of having to approve new media technologies. Patent law too seems to impose entry barriers, not just in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, where government regulation expressly prevents entry, but also in the costs patent enforcement imposes on start-ups in the software industry. The turn towards regulatory IP does not bode well for innovation and competition.
{"title":"The Regulatory Turn in IP","authors":"Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/nm9sj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/nm9sj","url":null,"abstract":"We don’t want a \"Mother, may I?\" regulatory regime for innovation. A regulatory regime that requires permission to enter the market or develop a new product is a problem for innovation because it relies on the government, not the innovator, to decide the course of innovation. Giving private entities \"Mother, may I?\" control over entry is no better; while market competition is efficient, private decisions by a single actor controlling a market generally aren't.Unfortunately, IP law increasingly looks like a regulatory regime, not a common law mechanism for internalizing social costs. The Copyright Act has more and more regulatory characteristics, and copyright owners increasingly seek to put the government in the position of having to approve new media technologies. Patent law too seems to impose entry barriers, not just in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, where government regulation expressly prevents entry, but also in the costs patent enforcement imposes on start-ups in the software industry. The turn towards regulatory IP does not bode well for innovation and competition.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131889459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Regulatory complexity and bureaucracy inefficiencies increase the time needed and the cost of starting a business and therefore reduce the competitiveness of a country. Since the early 1990s Italy, in the same way as other developed countries, has tried to introduce some reforms to boost the efficiency of public administration and reduce administrative burdens. The results have been limited. In 2010 two new reforms were introduced. The first allows an entrepreneur to start a business by electronically filing a form (named SCIA, Segnalazione Certificata di Inizio Attivita) he declaring that the firm complies with all the legal requirements. The SCIA replaces the ex ante with ex post public administration controls. The second reform improves the local one-stop-shops regulation (the SUAP, Sportello Unico per le Attivita Produttive). This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the two reforms. The time required and the cost of starting a business can be effectively reduced only if the administrative simplification tools are coupled with other reforms that eliminate unnecessary regulatory barriers, rationalize regulation, and reorganize the public administration.
监管的复杂性和官僚主义的低效增加了开办企业所需的时间和成本，从而降低了一个国家的竞争力。自1990年代初以来，意大利同其他发达国家一样，努力推行一些改革，以提高公共行政的效率和减轻行政负担。结果是有限的。2010年出台了两项新的改革。第一个允许企业家通过电子提交一份表格(名为SCIA, Segnalazione Certificata di Inizio Attivita)来开始创业，声明该公司符合所有法律要求。SCIA用事后公共管理控制取代事前公共管理控制。第二项改革改善了当地一站式商店的监管(SUAP, Sportello Unico per le atitivita productive)。本文对这两项改革的效果进行了评价。只有将行政简化工具与其他改革相结合，消除不必要的监管障碍，理顺监管，重组公共管理，才能有效降低开办企业所需的时间和成本。
{"title":"Starting a Business in Italy: Recent Reforms to Cut Time and Costs","authors":"Roberta Occhilupo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2023139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2023139","url":null,"abstract":"Regulatory complexity and bureaucracy inefficiencies increase the time needed and the cost of starting a business and therefore reduce the competitiveness of a country. Since the early 1990s Italy, in the same way as other developed countries, has tried to introduce some reforms to boost the efficiency of public administration and reduce administrative burdens. The results have been limited. In 2010 two new reforms were introduced. The first allows an entrepreneur to start a business by electronically filing a form (named SCIA, Segnalazione Certificata di Inizio Attivita) he declaring that the firm complies with all the legal requirements. The SCIA replaces the ex ante with ex post public administration controls. The second reform improves the local one-stop-shops regulation (the SUAP, Sportello Unico per le Attivita Produttive). This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the two reforms. The time required and the cost of starting a business can be effectively reduced only if the administrative simplification tools are coupled with other reforms that eliminate unnecessary regulatory barriers, rationalize regulation, and reorganize the public administration.","PeriodicalId":431314,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Regulation (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115777649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：