IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v58y2020i6p1558-1577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards an Evidence‐Based and Integrated Policy Cycle in the EU: A Review of the Debate on the Better Regulation Agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Giulia Listorti
  • Egle Basyte‐Ferrari
  • Szvetlana Acs
  • Paul Smits

Abstract

Our aim is to provide an overview of the debate on the Better Regulation (BR) Agenda presented in 2015 by the European Commission. In addition to academic literature, we also consider studies and reports from Think Tanks, international organizations, and EU internal scrutinizing bodies. After presenting the main aspects of the debate on some overarching elements of the BR Agenda, we focus in particular on two highlights: evidence‐based policymaking and the integrated policy cycle. We structure the discussion around main achievements, remaining critical aspects and suggestions about what could be further improved. Findings show that although the Commission remains a front‐runner when it comes to Better Regulation, more efforts are needed to go the last mile when it comes to evidence‐based policymaking and closing the policy cycle. We find that the great majority of arrticles welcome the ambition of the BR Agenda reform. At the same time, they also make clear that to effectively improve regulation, further methodological guidance and concrete efforts in implementation are needed. Another interesting finding is that the debate on the BR Agenda is extremely varied, covering normative as well as very technical aspects. It appears, though, to be confined within certain academic fields (namely political science, public administration, and law), while other fields that can be, in practice, also deeply linked to BR related activities are less represented.

Suggested Citation

  • Giulia Listorti & Egle Basyte‐Ferrari & Szvetlana Acs & Paul Smits, 2020. "Towards an Evidence‐Based and Integrated Policy Cycle in the EU: A Review of the Debate on the Better Regulation Agenda," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1558-1577, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:58:y:2020:i:6:p:1558-1577
    DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13053
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jcms.13053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ragnar Lofstedt & Anne Katrin Schlag, 2017. "Looking back and going forward: what should the new European Commission do in order to promote evidence-based policy-making?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(11), pages 1359-1378, November.
    2. Renda, Andrea, 2015. "Too good to be true? A quick assessment of the EC’s new Better Regulation Package," CEPS Papers 10600, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    3. Eric van den Abeele, 2015. "'Better regulation': a bureaucratic simplification with a political agenda," Working Papers 13427, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).
    4. Renda, Andrea, 2017. "Introducing EU Reduction Targets on Regulatory Costs: A Feasibility Study," CEPS Papers 12740, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    5. Renda, Andrea, 2017. "How can Sustainable Development Goals be ‘mainstreamed’ in the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda?," CEPS Papers 12334, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    6. Claire A. Dunlop & Claudio M. Radaelli, 2013. "Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(3), pages 599-619, October.
    7. Andrea Renda, 2016. "From Impact Assessment to the Policy Cycle: Drawing Lessons from the EU's Better-Regulation Agenda," SPP Technical Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(33), October.
    8. Claudio M. Radaelli, 2018. "Halfway Through the Better Regulation Strategy of the Juncker Commission: What Does the Evidence Say?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(S1), pages 85-95, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enrico Santarelli, 2025. "Evidence-based policymaking and the crisis of Western Democracies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 157-164, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yannis Papadopoulos, 2018. "How does knowledge circulate in a regulatory network? Observing a European Platform of Regulatory Authorities meeting," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 431-450, December.
    2. Ekaterina Domorenok & Anthony R. Zito, 2021. "Engines of learning? Policy instruments, cities and climate governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 507-528, September.
    3. Erik Baekkeskov, 2016. "Explaining science-led policy-making: pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 395-419, December.
    4. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    5. Meng Hsuan Chou & Michael Howlett & Kei Koga, 2016. "Image and Substance Failures in Regional Organisations: Causes, Consequences, Learning and Change?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 50-61.
    6. Michael Zarkin, 2024. "Policy Experts and Policy Design in Regulatory Agencies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1215-1231, December.
    7. Jan Stráský, 2016. "Priorities for completing the European Union's Single Market," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1315, OECD Publishing.
    8. Kristof van Assche & Raoul Beunen & Stefan Verweij, 2020. "Comparative Planning Research, Learning, and Governance: The Benefits and Limitations of Learning Policy by Comparison," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 11-21.
    9. Iftikhar Lodhi, 2021. "Globalisation and public policy: bridging the disciplinary and epistemological boundaries [Which synthesis? Strategies of theoretical integration and the neorealist-neoliberal debate]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(4), pages 522-544.
    10. Sara Casagrande & Bruno Dallago, 2022. "Socio-Economic and Political Challenges of EU Member Countries: Grasping the Policy Direction of the European Semester," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(3), pages 487-519, September.
    11. Roman Senninger & Jens Blom‐Hansen, 2021. "Meet the critics: Analyzing the EU Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board through quantitative text analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1436-1453, October.
    12. David Coen & Alexander Katsaitis, 2021. "Lobbying Brexit Negotiations: Who Lobbies Michel Barnier?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 37-47.
    13. David Coen & Alexander Katsaitis, 2021. "Lobbying Brexit Negotiations: Who Lobbies Michel Barnier?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 37-47.
    14. Sophie Jacquot, 2020. "Small Decisions? The European Commission and the Transformation of the Role of Legal Expert Groups: The Case of Gender Equality and Non‐Discrimination," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 545-561, May.
    15. Lorraine Eden & M. Fernanda Wagstaff, 2021. "Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 28-57, March.
    16. Alastair Stark, 2019. "Policy learning and the public inquiry," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 397-417, September.
    17. Carolina Milhorance & Jean-François Le Coq & Eric Sabourin, 2021. "Dealing with cross-sectoral policy problems: An advocacy coalition approach to climate and water policy integration in Northeast Brazil," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 557-578, September.
    18. Renda, Andrea & Reynolds, Nicole & Laurer, Moritz & Cohen, Gal, 2019. "Digitising Agrifood: Pathways and Challenges," CEPS Papers 25701, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    19. Kristof van Assche & Raoul Beunen & Stefan Verweij, 2020. "Comparative Planning Research, Learning, and Governance: The Benefits and Limitations of Learning Policy by Comparison," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 11-21.
    20. Jens Blom‐Hansen & Roman Senninger, 2021. "The Commission in EU Policy Preparation," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 625-642, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:58:y:2020:i:6:p:1558-1577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.