Ústav verejnej politiky a ekonómieFakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied

Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave

Regulatory impact assessment developments in Central and Eastern EuropeKatarína Staroňovástaronova@governance.sk

1

Policy Making Framework for RIA

•Legal formalism vs. Policy Making•Set by Constitution and laws, mainly legislative

procedure of Government and Parliament: focus on technical issues of legislative drafting

•No formal rules or guidelines to policy development

•Legislation – key policy instrument (not linked to budgeting) : low quality of products

•Central coordination capacity limited

Main Problems Diagnosed

1. Starting point of new legislation is not clear2. Legislation always comes before policy3. Little focus on results4. Financially unrealistic policy / legislative planning5. The link between policy planning and the State

Budget is not well developed 6. The system of policy ex ante or ex post impact

assessment and evaluation practically non-existent

As a result – decisions in Government are taken based on poor information

Introducing Regulatory Impact Assessment Framework

- Strategic Environmental RIA (adherence to international agreements)

- Procedural Guidelines (of Government/Parliament) require that RIA is utilized prior to legislation approval:

- Explanatory memoranda: - constitutional basis of proposed draft- Conformity with EU legislation- Budgetary implications (state budget)- Specific types of RIA: problems with interpretations

- Free Access to Information Law opens consultation process• 1st Phase - Adoption: most of CEE countries within

timeframe of 1996 – 2000,• 2nd Phase - Implementation: RIA modernization and

adaptation around 2010

Institutionalization and implementation •Scope of RIA (targeting RIA)•Timing•Presence of coordinating and

oversight/Quality control body (independent review)

•Existance of guidelines/trainings•Consultation process•Structural issues (options, data collection

methods and analyses, ex-post impact assessment)

5

1st Phase results: Adoption, no implementation

• Analytical information extremely poor (formalistic approach): legitimacy of decisions

• Considering RIA for public sector (not private or citizens)• Structural issues: no options, consultation=inter-ministerial

review processWHY?• Scope: All legal texts (no administrative capacity)• Formalism: RIA made ex post to fulfill bureaucratic measure

and legitimizing decisions• Absence of clear methodology, guidance and training

(interpretations, how to conduct, etc.)• Absence of supervision and quality control mechanism• WRONG TIME AND PLACE FOR RIA

2nd phase results: RIA – becoming part of a system?

•Anchoring into existing Legislative/Strategic Planning system (adaptation)

•Strong actors•Establishing central coordinating (and quality control)

unit•Limiting volume of material to which RIA is required:

sophistications of methods used•Development of the tool (Preparing manuals and

guidelines to assist fulfillment and implementation of the legislation for civil servants)

•Development of the capacity (Designating specific posts within civil service to deal with some of the issues more specifically: network of professionals + Establishing regular training)

RIA Institutionalization after Reforms•Political support for reforms (why reforms ocurred - learning,

how was it politically supported)• Institutional oversight structures (model, coordination, powers,

assistance, reporting)•Fit with overall decision-making (one off activity vs. Continued

process, timing)•Core requirements: justification of action, options, Consultation

process•Output of RIA process (type of formal document)•Transparency•Countries compared: Czech republic, Estonia, Hungary,

Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia

8

Political support for reform mobilization•Reform Initiation- Domestic Audit (learning involved): Czech Republic,

Estonia, Slovenia- Domestic (no learning, political decision): Hungary- SIGMA report/Better regulation: Lithuania, Poland,

Slovakia•Political Leadership and Support- Government/Parliament (collective): Czech republic,

Estonia- Minister: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland- Civil servants: Slovakia, Slovenia

9

Institutional Oversight Structures

- Independent expert body linked to decision-making: Czech republic

- One horizontal oversight body (Government Office/ Prime Ministers Office): Lithuania, Poland

- One oversight body in ministry (MoJ, MoPA): Estonia, Hungary,

- Several oversight bodies (Four): Slovakia- No oversight body: Slovenia

10

Institutional Oversight – the Czech republic I

•November 2011 : RIA Commmittee at the Legislative Council of the Government

- non-binding advisory opinion to Legislative Council- 15 independent experts from private

sector/academia (not civil servants)•3 main competencies- Plan of legislative tasks: which legislative intents

require RIA- Consultations on methodological issues during RIA

development- Quality control on Final RIA statements

11

12

RIA Committee suggests which legislative intents should have RIAs

RIA Committee provides consultation on methodological concerns together with RIA unit

RIA Committee checks the quality of RIA (contents): provides statement, if not satisfactory, RIAs are returned for completion

Institutional Oversight – the Czech republic II

•RIA Committee Statements- RIA fulfills the Standards laid in RIA Methodology

and can be approved- RIA does not fulfill the Standards due to

drawbacks in the analysis and it has to be returned for redrafting prior to Government session

- RIA shows that Law proposal is redundant/brings regulatory burden and it recommends the Government not to approve draft law

13

2013 RIA Committee Recommendations

14

Oversight structure - Slovakia- Oversight structure with no political support

(MoFinance, MoEconomcy, MoSocial Affairs, MoEnviroment)

- Oversight structure with other competencies + not perceived as their duty (non-use): Slovakia (MoEnviro)

- Oversight structure linked to budgetary decisions: Slovakia (MoFinance)

• Internal case following (central registry)•Specialization•Reporting/briefing of Minister (defends at Gvt.

Sessions)

15

Oversight structure - Hungary

•2010 Office of Deputy State Secretary for Public Administration Strategy at Ministry of PA and Justice

•ECOSTAT (prior to that Statistical office): establish complex basis to support RIA

- RIA database- Collection of complex data - Macroeconomic models for simulations

16

Institutional Oversight Tasks – what matters

+ -

Planning (external – overall workload)

CzR, Est, Pol Sk

Planning (internal – case supervision, specialization)

CzR, Sk (MoF)

Central registry (tracking) Sk (MoF) Hu, Pol, Slo

Assistance (methodological guidance + data collection/provision)

CzR, Est, Hu

Formal Control (ticking boxes) Hu, Sk, Slo

Quality Control (analytical contents + methods)

CzR, Est, Sel: Lith, Sk (MoF)

Pol, Slo, Sk

Opinions Provided (written + oral) CzR, Sk, Pol Slo, Hu

Powers (veto) CzR, Sk (MoF)

Political Support at decision-making level (authority)

CzR Hu, Slo, Sk

Reporting (statistical) / audit (analytical)

CzR, Est, Lith,Slo Pol, Hu

17

Fit with decision-making process•Two-tier system linked to legislative

planning: Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania

•Two-tier system with „regulatory test“: Poland, Slovakia (changed to voluntary in 2012)

•Failure to start RIA early enough: Hungary, Slovenia

RISK: fast-track procedure in all countries

18

Two-phase system in Slovakia

 

total number of laws

and amendm

ets going to

gvt. session

quick testpreliminary review procedure (PRP)

Total

new lawsamendme

ntsnew laws

Amendments

2008 112 0 0 - -  

2009 130 0 0 - -  

2010 103 - - 11 21 32 (31%)

2011 131 - - 28 42 70 (53%)

2012 84 - - 5 6 11 (13%)

2013 108 - - 6 5 11 (10%)

Total 668     50 74 124

Core requirements• Justification of Action- Justification linked with problem and objectives analysis

(TM): Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania- Selective analysis of problemORobjective (StM): Poland- General phrase (SymM): Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia•Multiple Options•Consultations- Explicitly part of RIA process- Explicitly part of RIA (selective for groups)- Open inter-ministerial review (transparency laws)Transparency + Output

20

Linking RIA to EU policy making

• Community law: EC legislation to be implemented in timely, effective and proportionate manner

Co-decision procedure• Use of RIA1)To inform EU negotiations and to shape national positions in the

EU working groups before a directive is agreed- Basis for discussions with Commission, other Member states and

the Parliament- Contribute information from own RIA to Commissions (+

consultations)2) To increase the quality of transposition and implementation on

domestic level (to consider how European proposal will be implemented)

- Avoiding over-implementation (gold-plating): Czech republic

21

2nd phase results: RIA – becoming part of a system?

•Reforms anchoring new institutions, how RIA became standardized and open

•Prior to reforms: non-use or symbolic use•Countries with the strongest political support and

internal learning (Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania) altered most radically the processes to fit formal legislative process: how oversight and timing structured

•Still wrong time and place (symbolic reforms) with little support: Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia

• Influence of better regulation (strategic selective use): Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia

•Risk: fast-track procedure, exceptions to RIA•Still to do: EU transposition

THANK YOU!!!!

23