2015 OECD REGULATORY POLICY OUTLOOK

Transcription

1 2015 OECD REGULATORY POLICY OUTLOOK Céline Kauffmann, Deputy Head, Regulatory Policy Division Rebecca Schultz, Analyst, Measuring Regulatory Performance Public Governance and Territorial Development, OECD Oslo, 22 September 2016

2 OECD and Better Regulation 20 years of experience in dealing with regulatory policy/better regulation OECD has reviewed regulatory policy in most of its member countries + Brazil, China, Russia, Indonesia Internationally recognised Principles: Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance

3

4 The OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015 First evidence-based cross-country analysis of OECD countries progress to improve the way they regulate Based on the 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (ireg) Profiles for all OECD jurisdictions In-depth review of 3 key tools of regulatory policy: RIA, stakeholder engagement, ex post evaluation Forward looking agenda for regulatory policy

5 Strong political commitment to regulatory policy in OECD countries Source: 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook (2015).

6 Formal requirements are in place Source: 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook.

7 Making it count Move away from the procedural approach and embed a strategic use of regulatory policy tools within the public administration Promote evidence-based policy regulatory making by systematically collecting evidence, monitoring and evaluating results to create a virtuous circle Mind the governance of regulatory policy: institutions matter

8 Implementation remains behind requirements Source: 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook.

9 Assessment of varied impacts weak proportionality approach Impact on the budget 1 30 Impact on the public sector Impact on competition 5 24 Impact on environment 7 22 Impact on small businesses 7 22 Impact on social goals 8 19 Impact on market openness 9 18 Impact on specific social groups 7 19 Impact on sustainable development Some regulations Impact on gender equality 5 20 Major regulations Impact on income inequality All regulations Impact on poverty Impact on trade 9 15 Impact on innovation Impact on specific regional areas Impact on other groups 7 12 Impact on foreign jurisdictions Number of jurisdictions

10 RIA oversight can be strengthened Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,

11 Consultation tends to happen at a late stage in the rulemaking process Source: 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook.

12 Focus evaluations on the achievement of underlying goals of regulation Source: 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook.

13 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (ireg) Methodology Stakeholder engagement Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Ex post evaluation 13

14 How good are OECD countries RIA systems? 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (ireg): Regulatory Impact Assessment for developing primary laws Methodology Systematic adoption Transparency Oversight and quality control OECD average Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%). Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,

15 How do countries engage with stakeholders? 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (ireg): Stakeholder engagement in developing primary laws Methodology Systematic adoption Transparency Oversight and quality control OECD average Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%). Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,

16 Ex post evaluation unexploited potential? 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (ireg): Ex post evaluation for primary laws Methodology Systematic adoption Transparency Oversight and quality control OECD average Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,

17 Analysis of categories across groups: Stakeholder engagement 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Norway 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Starting group Intermediate group Advanced group Systematic adoption Methodology Transparency Oversight and quality control Note: Each pillar represents the percentage of countries in the respective group that score above 0.5 (with the highest possible score being 1) for the respective category (systematic adoption, methodology, transparency, oversight and quality control). The underlying scores are an average of the scores for primary laws and subordinate regulations, except for the United States, for which only the results for subordinate regulations are used. The Grouping of countries is based on Regulatory Policy Outlook, p. 29. For stakeholder engagement, 11 countries are in the starting group, 14 countries in the middle group and 10 countries in the high group. Source: OECD, 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance. Online available at:

18 Analysis of categories across groups: Regulatory impact assessment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Systematic adoption Methodology Transparency Starting group Intermediate group Advanced group Norway Oversight and quality control Note: Each pillar represents the percentage of countries in the respective group that score above 0.5 (with the highest possible score being 1) for the respective category (systematic adoption, methodology, transparency, oversight and quality control). The underlying scores are an average of the scores for primary laws and subordinate regulations, except for the United States, for which only the results for subordinate regulations are used. The Grouping of countries is based on Regulatory Policy Outlook, p. 29. For RIA, 11 countries are in the starting group, 14 countries are in the middle group and 10 countries are in the advanced group. Source: OECD, 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance. Online available at:

19 Indicators have their limitations - How to get the full story? Surveys of stakeholders and experts Country reviews to assess implementation in practice and provide context-specific recommendations

20 Further information OECD (2015), Regulatory Policy Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance:

21 The functions of oversight bodies Areas of responsibility Functions Location Legal quality Guidance and training Within government RIA Consultation/stakeholder engagement Ex post evaluation Admin simplification Other e.g. De-regulation agenda or E-government Systematic improvement of GRP Quality control soft gatekeeping Challenge hard gatekeeping Co-ordination of agencies/proposals Prompt Advocacy o o o Centre of government (e.g. PM s office, cabinet office) Ministry of Finance/ Economy / Treasury/Justice Other ministries External to government o o o Independent bodies Parliament Office of Attorney General

22 The location of oversight bodies

23 Areas of responsibility