IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1436-1453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2020. "Measuring partisan media bias in US Newscasts from 2001-2012," Working Paper 183/2020, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, revised 15 Nov 2022.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Grajzl, Peter & Murrell, Peter, 2021. "A machine-learning history of English caselaw and legal ideas prior to the Industrial Revolution I: generating and interpreting the estimates," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    12. David Bholat & Stephen Hans & Pedro Santos & Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, 2015. "Text mining for central banks," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 33, April.
    13. Julia Seiermann, 2018. "Only Words? How Power in Trade Agreement Texts Affects International Trade Flows," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 80, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    14. Sami Diaf & Jörg Döpke & Ulrich Fritsche & Ida Rockenbach, 2020. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions of German economic research institutes based on text mining techniques," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 202001, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    15. Michael Makowsky & Thomas Stratmann, 2014. "Politics, unemployment, and the enforcement of immigration law," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 131-153, July.
    16. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    17. Karen Maguire, 2013. "Drill Baby Drill? Political and Market Influences on Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing in the Western United States," Economics Working Paper Series 1401, Oklahoma State University, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business, revised Apr 2013.
    18. repec:wvu:wpaper:09-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    20. Weiss, Max & Zoorob, Michael, 2021. "Political frames of public health crises: Discussing the opioid epidemic in the US Congress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    21. Yoshiharu Oritani, 2010. "Public governance of central banks: an approach from new institutional economics," BIS Working Papers 299, Bank for International Settlements.

    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.