IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/pubmmg/v33y2013i6p445-452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the content of regulatory impact assessments in the UK and the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Fritsch
  • Claudio M. Radaelli
  • Lorna Schrefler
  • Andrea Renda

Abstract

This paper examines the content of impact assessments (IAs) in the European Commission (EC) and the UK for the period 2005 to 2010. We coded 477 IAs for the UK and 296 for the EC, using a detailed scorecard. The findings suggest that IA is not a perfunctory activity in the European Union and the UK. The breadth of consultation and economic analysis has improved steadily across the years, arguably as a result of learning and regulatory oversight. The UK and the EC are strikingly similar on a number of dimensions (such as economic analysis and identification of costs and benefits). However, the IAs of the EC seem to pay more attention to social and environmental dimensions. The conclusions reflect on the implications of the authors' findings for current policy discussions concerning regulatory quality and the role of regulatory oversight bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Fritsch & Claudio M. Radaelli & Lorna Schrefler & Andrea Renda, 2013. "Comparing the content of regulatory impact assessments in the UK and the EU," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 445-452, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:33:y:2013:i:6:p:445-452
    DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2013.836007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09540962.2013.836007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09540962.2013.836007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alemanno & J.B Wiener, 2010. "Comparing Regulatory Oversight Bodies across the Atlantic: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU," Post-Print hal-00570501, HAL.
    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. Jacques Pelkmans & Andrea Renda, "undated". "Does EU Regulation Hinder or Stimulate Innovation?," IRMO Occasional Papers 5, Institute for Development and International Relations, Zagreb.
    2. Pelkmans, Jacques & Lejour, Arjan & Schrefler, Lorna & Mustilli, Federica & Timini, Jacopo, 2014. "The Impact of TTIP: The underlying economic model and comparisons," CEPS Papers 9710, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    3. Oliver Fritsch & Jonathan C. Kamkhaji & Claudio M. Radaelli, 2017. "Explaining the content of impact assessment in the United Kingdom: Learning across time, sectors, and departments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 325-342, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Pelkmans, Jacques & Renda, Andrea, 2014. "Does EU regulation hinder or stimulate innovation?," CEPS Papers 9822, Centre for European Policy Studies.

    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. Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), 2015. "Economic Policy Monitor 2014: Effective Regulations for Sustainable Growth," Discussion Papers PIDS EPM 2014, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    2. Stuart Shapiro & John F. Morrall III, 2012. "The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 189-206, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) & Philippine APEC Study Center Network (PASCN), 2015. "Building Inclusive Economies, Building a Better World: A Look at the APEC 2015 Priority Areas (Volume 1)," Discussion Papers PIDS Book 2015-01, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

    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:taf:pubmmg:v:33:y:2013:i:6:p:445-452. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPMM20 .

    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.