IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1436-1453.html

Meet the critics: Analyzing the EU Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board through quantitative text analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Senninger
  • Jens Blom‐Hansen

Abstract

As part of the “better regulation” agenda, the European Commission created a semi‐independent institution, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, to monitor the preparation of policy proposals. The position of this Board is potentially wide‐ranging. A proposal that is not given the green light by it cannot proceed in the Commission's internal decisionmaking process. But so far, the Board has only received scant scholarly attention. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on the Commission's policy preparation. Using machine learning techniques and quantitative text analysis, we study 673 Board opinions and compare almost 100 draft and final policy proposals. Our findings show that the Board is an active watchdog that is taken seriously by the Commission's departments. A full understanding of policy preparation in the EU therefore requires more scholarly attention to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1436-1453
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12312
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12312?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. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    2. Alberto Alemanno, 2009. "The Better Regulation Initiative at the Judicial Gate: A Trojan Horse within the Commission's Walls or the Way Forward?," Post-Print hal-00493157, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Mozer, Reagan & Miratrix, Luke & Kaufman, Aaron Russell & Jason Anastasopoulos, L., 2020. "Matching with Text Data: An Experimental Evaluation of Methods for Matching Documents and of Measuring Match Quality," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 445-468, October.
    5. Brian Greenhill & Michael D. Ward & Audrey Sacks, 2011. "The Separation Plot: A New Visual Method for Evaluating the Fit of Binary Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 991-1002, October.
    6. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Karlson, Nils & Herold, Theo & Dalbard, Karl, 2022. "Ratio Working Paper No. 353: From free competition to fair competition on the European internal market," Ratio Working Papers 353, The Ratio Institute.

    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. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Richard A. Nielsen, 2020. "Adjusting for Confounding with Text Matching," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 887-903, October.
    2. Jacques Pelkmans & Andrea Renda, "undated". "Does EU Regulation Hinder or Stimulate Innovation?," IRMO Occasional Papers 5, Institute for Development and International Relations, Zagreb.
    3. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Ntentas, Raphael, 2021. "Quantifying political populism and examining the link with economic insecurity: evidence from Greece," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112579, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Helena Seibicke & Asimina Michailidou, 2022. "The Challenges of Reconstructing Citizen-Driven EU Contestation in the Digital Media Sphere," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(1), pages 97-107.
    6. Lin, Annie E. & Young, Jimmy A. & Guarino, Jeannine E., 2022. "Mother-Daughter sexual abuse: An exploratory study of the experiences of survivors of MDSA using Reddit," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Yasuhiro Hara, 2024. "Dynamic Relationship between Information Dissemination by Local Governors and Mobility during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Discussion papers ron373, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan.
    8. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    9. Davide Luca, 2017. "Boon or bane for development? Turkey’s central state bureaucracy and the management of public investment," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 939-957, September.
    10. Sallin, Aurelién, 2021. "Estimating returns to special education: combining machine learning and text analysis to address confounding," Economics Working Paper Series 2109, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    11. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    12. Budzinski, Oliver & Haucap, Justus, 2019. "Kartellrecht und Ökonomik: Institutions matter!," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 102, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    13. Bastiaan Bruinsma & Moa Johansson, 2024. "Finding the structure of parliamentary motions in the Swedish Riksdag 1971–2015," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3275-3301, August.
    14. Anselm Küsters, 2022. "Applying Lessons from the Past? Exploring Historical Analogies in ECB Speeches through Text Mining, 1997–2019," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 18(1), pages 277-329, March.
    15. Rybinski, Krzysztof, 2020. "The forecasting power of the multi-language narrative of sell-side research: A machine learning evaluation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    16. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    17. Rauh, Christian, 2015. "Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 116-138.
    18. Mingyang Zhang & Zhiqiang Xia, 2026. "Unveiling the complex tapestry of China’s carbon policy: an innovative topic-network-prediction framework," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Pratima (Tima) Bansal & Jury Gualandris & Nahyun Kim, 2020. "Theorizing Supply Chains with Qualitative Big Data and Topic Modeling," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 56(2), pages 7-18, April.
    20. Heinemann, Friedrich & Kemper, Jan, 2022. "Inflation of objectives instead of focus on inflation? Evidence on the ECB objective function from a textual analysis," ZEW Expert Briefs 22-07, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1436-1453. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.