Publications

Government is committed to conducting formal impact assessments of the need for and likely impact of new regulations. A National Audit Office report has found that scrutiny of proposed legislation is strengthening and that the standard is better than it was, but one fifth of assessments still did not include any quantified data to assess costs or benefits. The Better Regulation Executive (BRE) has introduced new guidance, templates and training to improve the quality of impact assessments and, as a result, impact assessments have clearer presentation of results, better planning for implementation, and more quantification of costs and benefits. But wide variation remains between the best and worst impact assessments. Where they are done well, the impact assessments include a clear statement of the policy problem, make good use of consultation and have clear recommendations. On the other hand, only 20 per cent of impact assessments presented the results of an evaluation of a range of regulatory options. Many impact assessments did not pay enough attention to compliance and enforcement issues. For example, only one third of assessments assessed the cost of enforcement for the preferred option. There have been improvements in the analysis of costs and benefits. In 2008, 67 per cent of impact assessments quantified costs and 60 per cent quantified benefits. Under the previous arrangements, the figures were 56 per cent for quantified costs and 40 per cent for quantified benefits. There is, however, still wide variation in the level of evidence provided and insufficient analysis in the weaker impact assessments.

Most OECD countries have made policies to reduce administrative burdens – cutting red tape – a political priority. Red tape is particularly burdensome to smaller companies and may inhibit entrepreneurship. These effects are more costly in global markets, where competitiveness can be affected by the efficiency of the domestic regulatory and administrative environment. But citizens and large firms also complain about unnecessary reporting requirements. Results are wanted. What can governments do? Strategies include setting quantitative targets to reduce administrative burdens when new regulations are drafted and by reviewing older regulations; codification; better multi-level co-ordination; and rapid introduction of e-government services. Supported by taskforces and advisory committees, governments increasingly locate responsibility in a central administrative unit. This “whole-of-government” approach represents a major step in recent years, embedding administrative simplification in the overall regulatory quality system at the national level.