Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Does Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Really Evaluate Regulatory Impact? The Case of the Czech Republic

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

The basic goal of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is to improve regulatory quality by ex ante selecting the best alternative using cost-benefit analysis and enabling ex post evaluation of the real impact. Both goals are achievable only when RIA is properly implemented for all potential sources of regulation, including parliamentary amendments to bills. But these are usually not subject to RIA. This paper analyzes all bills and related amendments passed in the Czech Republic in 2010 and finds that about 15% of the adopted amendments, distributed among 17 of 34 bills, alter the original impacts of the bill. The results suggest that RIAs are often inapplicable for the ex post evaluation and the best alternative identified by RIA may not be achieved.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://ies.fsv.cuni.cz/sci/publication/show/id/4782
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies in its series Working Papers IES with number 2012/29.

as in new window
Length: 26pages
Date of creation: Nov 2012
Date of revision: Nov 2012
Handle: RePEc:fau:wpaper:wp2012_29

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Opletalova 26, CZ-110 00 Prague
Phone: +420 2 222112330
Fax: +420 2 22112304
Email:
Web page: http://ies.fsv.cuni.cz/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: regulatory impact assessment; policy appraisal; better regulation; legislative process;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fau:wpaper:wp2012_29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lenka Herrmannova).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.