Publications

The EU proposal on liberalisation of the energy markets has been widely debated in policy, stakeholder and academic circles both for its content and the potential consequences to the gas and electricity markets. However, little has been said about the empirical evidence produced by the European Commission to support this legislative package. Since the Impact Assessment system has been in place, there have been concerns regarding quality and adequateness, especially when quantifying costs, benefits and risks. This paper analyses how these crucial issues were factored into the Impact Assessment on the third legislative package. It investigates the interaction between the legislative proposals on energy liberalisation and its Impact Assessment.

A methodology to measure administrative burdens, based on the Dutch Standard Cost Model (SCM), has been applied in a large number of European countries, coupled in most cases with the commitment to a reduction target. This paper compares the application of the method in different national context and discusses its weaknesses and strengths against more complete forms of evaluation of the adequacy of regulation. The paper also discusses some indication arisen during the measurement of administrative burdens through SCM in Italy. Our main conclusion is that the SCM is a potentially useful tool and could provide motivation for culture change in policymaking. Its major strength, which lies mainly in its pragmatic approach and the possibility of commitment on a quantitative target, may be at the same time a source of weakness and may deliver some misleading results. Also some basic concepts of the model need a more rigorous definition to be consistently applied in different countries.

Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field experiment in which normative messages were used to promote household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive normative message detailing average neighborhood usage produced either desirable energy savings or the undesirable boomerang effect, depending on whether households were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted.

Better state regulation is a key component of economic reform. This is the first book to comprehensively explore international experience in the use of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which involves assessing the potential benefits and costs of any regulatory change. The contributors reveal that RIA is being adopted by an increasing number of countries as a route to better regulation with varying degrees of success. The book includes contributions from leading experts on regulatory reform and introduces a range of case studies from developed, developing and transitional economies.

Impact Assessments (IAs) were introduced at the EU level under the rhetorical facade of ‘better regulation’. The actual aim was to improve not only the quality but also the reputation of EU regulation before stakeholders. However, evidence brought forward by a number of evaluations pointed out that IAs are yet to achieve acceptable quality standards. The paper offers an overview of different disciplinary approaches for looking at IAs. It suggests that risk regulation encompasses the theoretical foundations to help understand the role of IAs in the EU decision‐making process. The analysis of 60 early days preliminary IAs provides empirical evidence regarding policy alternatives, methodology of consultation and use of quantitative techniques. Findings suggest that dawn period IAs were used mainly to provide some empirical evidence for regulatory intervention in front of stakeholders. The paper concludes with assumptions about the future role of IAs at EU level.

Do systematic approaches to economic policy appraisal, specifically regulatory impact assessment (RIA), enable complex organizations to learn? This question invites a reconsideration of how we conceptualize learning in public policy. Consequently, this paper distinguishes between economic-Bayesian learning, social learning, and political learning. These three types of learning are examined alongside the null hypothesis of change brought about by factors different from learning – such as partisan politics, regulatory competition, and coercion. Evidence from four countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK) is examined within a time-period of ten years or so, controlling for both domestic and multi-level (that is, domestic-EU) effects. The findings corroborate social learning rather than economic-Bayesian learning. In turn, social learning does not provide a convincing explanation, unless one enters political learning. There is only random and scattered evidence for the null
hypothesis, but this is contingent on a sample of highly developed countries, in which coercion from international organizations and donor requirements do not play a significant role.

Governments throughout the world are requiring greater use of economic analysis as a way of informing policy decisions. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of impact assessment in the European Union, using US assessments as a benchmark. We find that recent EU impact assessments include more economic information than they did in the past, although important items are still missing. We also provide evidence that the quality of EU impact assessment increases with the expected cost of a proposal. Furthermore, we find that the quality of EU assessments that report high total costs is similar to that of US assessments.

This chapter introduces one of the "better regulation" instruments, the Standard Cost Model (SCM), a method for measuring the administrative burdens imposed by regulation on businesses. The chapter examines the content and purposes of the SCM. It discusses some of the limits of the model and difficulties that public administrations may face in its application and provides recommendations for improving the model. It describes recent applications of the SCM, with a particular focus on the UK experience and the European Commission. It is argued that the introduction of such methodology in the Impact Assessment guidelines may have an effect on the EU "better regulation" agenda, namely shifting the regulatory pendulum to a more de-regulatory dimension.

The better regulation agenda of the EU and the Member States has converged around plans for the reduction of administrative burdens. This is often presented as a pragmatic and efficient way to improve on the regulatory environment in Europe. However, there may be more symbolic politics than real efficiency gains in these plans, unless some conditions are met. This explains why business has not yet embraced wholeheartedly the ‘war on red tape’ agenda. The conclusion is that the agenda should be re-set in terms of regulatory quality, rather than focusing on ‘quantity targets’ in narrow areas of regulation.

Policy-makers increasingly see impact assessment as the philosopher’s stone that will enhance the quality of EU legislation in the years to come, leading Europe back onto the Lisbon track. But does the EU’s impact assessment model actually possess the virtues ascribed to it? This new book by Andrea Renda offers a scorecard analysis of the first 70 Extended Impact Assessments performed by the European Commission, and concludes that the procedure has only produced a sea of disappointment. Renda’s analysis of international best practices reveals that impact assessment is far from being a panacea, especially when built on shaky methodological and organisational grounds. The book proposes ten roadmaps to improve the current model, aiming to contribute to the upcoming review of the EU’s impact assessment model, scheduled for early 2006.