Publications

It is generally agreed that digital markets have peculiar characteristics that are difficult to capture using traditional market analysis tools. For some, antitrust and regulatory authorities should intervene as little as possible and not hinder the flow of innovation taking place in these markets. However, the prevailing orientation, both in USA and in Europe, recognizes the need for policies to contrast the excessive power of the “web giants”. In this context, special antitrust rules and new conceptual tools are deemed necessary, starting with overcoming the traditional concept of the relevant market. The author believes that a similar result could also be achieved through an evolutionary interpretation of current antitrust rules.

The 2021 edition includes input indicators on public finance and employment; process indicators include data on institutions, budgeting practices, human resources management, regulatory governance, public procurement, governance of infrastructure, public sector integrity, open government and digital government. Outcome indicators cover core government results (e.g. trust, political efficacy, inequality reduction) and indicators on access, responsiveness, quality and satisfaction for the education, health and justice sectors. Governance indicators are useful for monitoring and benchmarking governments’ progress in their public sector reforms.

Established domestic regulatory frameworks are reaching their limits to cope with today’s increasing cross-boundary policy challenges. Only united action can effectively navigate the rapid growth of economic integration and interdependencies, particularly driven by innovative technologies. Yet, contemporary regulatory frameworks tend to build on national jurisdictional boundaries constraining common solutions to meet the growing transboundary nature of policy challenges. In the aftermaths of global crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed the vulnerabilities of global health, economic and governance systems, it is time for a true paradigm shift towards more systematic consideration of the international environment in domestic regulatory frameworks. The OECD Best Practice Principles on International Regulatory Co-operation provide practical guidance supporting policymakers and civil servants in adapting regulatory frameworks to the interconnected reality. They outline key elements in defining a dedicated whole-of-government strategy and governance structure, embedding international considerations throughout the domestic regulatory design, development and delivery, and leveraging bilateral, regional and multilateral international cooperation on regulatory matters to support national policy objectives. Compiling various ways of international regulatory cooperation and experiences from countries, the OECD Best Practice Principles on International Regulatory Co-operation provide the impetus for policymakers and civil servants in a variety of legal and administrative environments on how to promote quality and resilience of regulatory frameworks in times of an increasingly interconnected world.

At the center of contemporary debates over public law lies administrative agencies’ discretion to impose rules. Yet, for every one of these rules, there are also unrules nearby. Often overlooked and sometimes barely visible, unrules are the decisions that regulators make to lift or limit the scope of a regulatory obligation, for instance through waivers, exemptions, and exceptions. In some cases, unrules enable regulators to reduce burdens on regulated entities or to conserve valuable government resources in ways that make law more efficient. However, too much discretion to create unrules can facilitate undue business influence over the law, weaken regulatory schemes, and even undermine the rule of law. In this paper, we conduct the first systematic empirical investigation of the hidden world of unrules. Using a computational linguistic approach to identify unrules across the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the United States Code, we show that unrules are an integral and substantial feature of the federal regulatory system. Our analysis shows that, by several conservative measures, there exists one obligation-alleviating word for approximately every five to six obligation-imposing words in federal law. We also show that unrules are surprisingly unrestrained by administrative law. In stark contrast to administrative law’s treatment of obligation-imposing rules, regulators wield substantially more discretion in deploying unrules to alleviate regulatory obligations. As a result, a major form of agency power remains hidden from view and relatively unencumbered by law. Recognizing the central role that unrules play in our regulatory system reveals the need to reorient administrative law and incorporate unrules more explicitly into its assumptions, doctrines, and procedures.