Cognitive-based regulation: selected literature

Good Regulation and Public Policies Evaluation: selected literature

  • R. Baldwin at al., Understanding Regulation (2nd ed. 2012) 
  • E. Bardach and R. Kagan (2003), Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness, New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers 
  • J. Black and R. Baldwin (2010), Very Responsive Risk-based Regulation, in Law and Policy, Vol. 32, n. 2, 2010
  • S. Breyer (1982), Regulation and its reform 
  • S. Cassese (2002), Dalle regole del gioco al gioco con le regole, in Mercato Concorrenza e Regole, vol. 2, p. 265 ss.
  • S. Cassese (2013), La qualità delle politiche pubbliche, ovvero del metodo nel governare, in, pp. 1-8
  • M. De Benedetto, M. Martelli, N. Rangone (2010), La qualità delle regole, Il Mulino
  • A. La Spina and G.D. Majone (2000), Lo stato regolatore, Bologna, Il Mulino
  • A. La Spina, L’analisi d’impatto della regolazione: i caratteri distintivi, le tecniche, la ricezione in Italia, Rivista Trimestrale di Scienza dell’Amministrazione n. 4 , 2000, pp. 11-17
  • M. Lodge and K. Wegrich (2009), High-Quality Regulation: Its Popularity, Its Tools and Its Future, Public Money & Management, 29, 3, 145–52
  • C. Kirkpatrick and D. Parker (2007), Regulatory Impact Assessment Towards Better Regulation?, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing
  • G. Majone (1990), Deregulation or re-regulation? Regulatory reform in Europe and the United States, Pinter Publisher, London, St. Martin’s Press, New York
  • C.M. Radaelli and A. Meuwese (2009), Better Regulation in Europe: Between Public Management and Regulatory Reform, Public Administration, Vol. 87, n. 3, pp. 639-654.
  • C.M. Radaelli (2008), How Context Matters: Regulatory Quality in the European Union, Paper presented for PSA Conference, Lincoln
  • N. Rangone (2012), The Quality Of Regulation. The Myth And Reality Of Good Regulation Tools, Italian Journal of Public Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 92-121
  • N. Rangone (2016), Techniques for improving the quality of procedural rules, in J.-B. Auby and T. Perroud, Droit comparé de la procédure administrative/Comparative Law of Administrative Procedure, Bruylant, p. 447-464
  • N. Rangone (2015), La valutazione delle politiche pubbliche nella riforma del Senato tra tecnica e politica, in Studi parlamentari e di politica costituzionale, n. 187/188, p. 73-91
  • S. Smismans, Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Challenge of Linking Ex Ante and Ex Post Appraisal, European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 6-26
  • J. Torriti, Does the Impact Assessment on the ‘Third Package’ provide the correct economic forecast for the liberalisation of the EU energy markets? EUI Working Paper, Florence, European University Institute, 2008
  • W. Voermans (2009), Concern about the quality of EU legislation: what kind of problem, by what kind of standards?, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 59-95 
  • J. B. Wiener (2006), Better Regulation in Europe, Duke Law School Working Paper Series, n. 65 
  • H. Xanthaki (2011), Quality of legislation: an achievable universal concept or a utopian pursuit?, in M. T. Almeida (ed.), Quality of Legislation, Nomos, Baden Baden, pp. 75-85.

Regulatory Impact Assessment: selected literatures

  • C. Cecot, R. Hahn, A. Renda, L. Schrefler, An Evaluation of the Quality of Impact Assessment in the European Union with Lessons for the U.S. and the EU, AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies, Working Paper, Washington, D.C., December 2007
  • F. Cacciatore, F. Salvi (eds), L'Analisi di impatto e gli strumenti per la qualità della regolazione. Annuario 2014, Osservatorio AIR, 2015, pp. 8-135.
  • F. De Francesco (2013), Transnational Policy Innovation: The OECD and the Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Analysis, Colchester: ECPR Press
  • S.H. Jacobs (1997), An overview of Regulatory Impact Analysis in OECD Countries, in OECD Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries, Paris, OECD Publications, 1997
  • R.W. Hahn, J.K. Burnett, I. Yee-Ho Chan, E.A. Mader, P.R. Moyle (2000), Assessing the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analyses, WP n.1, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C.
  • R.W. Hahn and J. Hird (1991), The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Review and Synthesis, Yale Journal on Regulation 8, pp. 233-278
  • K. Jacob, J. Heriton, et al. (2008), Improving the Practice of Impact Assessment, Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessment (EVIA Project), Final report
  • C.A. Dunlop and C.M. Radaelli (2016), eds, Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment, University of Exeter, UK, Edward Elgar
  • Posner, Eric A. and Sunstein, Cass R., Moral Commitments in Cost-Benefit Analysis (March 8, 2017). University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper No. 802; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 620.
  • Pelkmans J., Labory S., Majone G. (2000), Better EU regulatory quality: assessing current initiatives and new proposals, in Regulatory reform and competitiveness in Europe: Horizontal issues (Galli and Pelkmans. eds), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
  • C.M. Radaelli (2001), Regulatory impact analysis in comparative prospective, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli
  • C.M. Radaelli (2004), The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis: Best practice or lesson-drawing?, European Journal of Political Research, 43(5), p.723 ss.
  • C.M. Radaelli (2005), What Does Regulatory Impact Assessment Mean in Europe?, Related Publication 05-02, Washington, D.C., AEI-Brooking Joint Centre for Regulatory Studies
  • C.M. Radaelli (2007), Does Regulatory Impact Assessment make institutions think?, Governing the European Union: Policy instruments in a multi-level polity, Paris
  • C. M. Radaelli, F. De Francesco (2007), Regulatory Impact Assessment, Political Control and the Regulatory State, in Paper Delivered to the 4th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, Italy
  • N. Rangone, New Frontiers for Competition Advocacy and the Potential Role of Competition Impact Assessment, F. Di Porto and J. Drexel (a cura di), Competition Law as Regulation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, 2015, pp. 118-150, ISBN: 978-1-78347-258-1 (SSRN)
  • A. Renda (2006), EU Impact Assessment: the State of the Art and the Art of the State, CEPS, Brussels
  • J. Torriti (2007), (Regulatory) Impact Assessments in the European Union: a tool for better regulation, less regulation or less bad regulation? Journal of Risk Research, n. 2, pp. 239-276

Regulatory and Administrative Burdens Measurement: selected literature

  • H. Kaufman (1977), Red Tape – Its Origins, Uses and Abuses, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution
  • B. Bozeman (2000), Bureaucracy and Red Tape, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 
  • L. Cavallo, F. Coco, M. Martelli (2008), Evaluating administrative burdens through SCM: some indications from Italian experience, SCM Network website 
  • P. Coletti, C. Radaelli (2013), Economic Rationales, learning and regulatory instruments, Public Administration Journal, vol. 91, issue 4, p. 1056- 1079: doi:10.1111/padm.12006
  • W. Funk (1987), The Paperwork Reduction Act: paperwork reduction meets administrative law, Harvard Journal on Legislation, 24 (1), 1–27
  • D. Helm (2006), Regulatory reform, capture, and the regulatory burden, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22 (2), 169–85.
  • C. Radaelli (2007), Reflections on the political economy of the 'war on red tape’, Legislação, Cadernos de Ciência de Legislação, 45, 25–33
  • C. Radaelli (2007), Cracking down on administrative burdens, Federalismi
  • S. Shapiro (2011), The Paperwork Reduction Act: Research on Current Practices and Recommendations for Reform, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States
  • J. Torriti (2007), The standard cost model: when better regulation fights against red tape. Better regulation, in S. Weatherill (ed.), Better Regulation. Studies of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 83–106
  • J. Torriti (2012), Standard cost model: three different paths and their common problems, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8 (1), 90–108
  • K. Wegrich (2009), The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe: comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics, Discussion Paper n. 52

Expermental approach to regulation

  • D. Friedman and S. Sunder, Experimental Methods. A Primer for Economists, Cambridge, 1994
  • F. Guala, The Methodology of Experimental Economics, Cambridge, 2005
  • A.S. Gerber and D.P. Green, Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation, WW Norton, 2012

Clinical education