IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v6y2012i1p23-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases

Author

Listed:
  • Claire A. Dunlop
  • Martino Maggetti
  • Claudio M. Radaelli
  • Duncan Russel

Abstract

Research on regulation has crossed paths with the literature on policy instruments, showing that regulatory policy instruments contain cognitive and normative beliefs about policy. Thus, their usage stacks the deck in favor of one type of actor or one type of regulatory solution. In this article, we challenge the assumption that there is a predetermined relationship between ideas, regulatory policy instruments, and outcomes. We argue that different combinations of conditions lead to different outcomes, depending on how actors use the instrument. Empirically, we analyze 31 EU and UK case studies of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) – a regulatory policy instrument that has been pivotal in the so‐called better regulation movement. We distinguish four main usages of RIA, that is, political, instrumental, communicative, and perfunctory. We find that in our sample instrumental usage is not so rare and that the contrast between communicative and political usages is less stark than is commonly thought. In terms of policy recommendations, our analysis suggests that there may be different paths to desirable outcomes. Policymakers should therefore explore different combinations of conditions leading to the usages they deem desirable rather than arguing for a fixed menu of variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:6:y:2012:i:1:p:23-45
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01123.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01123.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01123.x?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. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Robert W. Hahn & Robert E. Litan, 2005. "Counting Regulatory Benefits and Costs: Lessons for the US and Europe," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 473-508, June.
    3. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    4. repec:reg:rpubli:91 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ragin, Charles C., 2006. "Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 291-310, July.
    6. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence‐Based Policy‐Making or Policy‐Based Evidence‐Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 1065-1081, September.
    7. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence-Based Policy-Making or Policy-Based Evidence-Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1065-1081, September.
    8. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    9. Claire Dunlop, 2010. "The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: biofuels policy in the UK," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 43(4), pages 343-363, December.
    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. Jan Pollex, 2022. "Simultaneous Policy Expansion and Reduction? Tracing Dismantling in the Context of Experimentalist Governance in European Union Environmental Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-633, May.

    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. Stijn van Voorst & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2017. "Enforcement tool or strategic instrument? The initiation of ex-post legislative evaluations by the European Commission," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 640-657, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    4. Giuseppe Munda, 2022. "Qualitative reasoning or quantitative aggregation rules for impact assessment of policy options? A multiple criteria framework," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3259-3277, October.
    5. Radchenko, Tatiana (Радченко, Татьяна) & Parshina, Elena (Паршина, Елена), 2014. "Regulatory Impact Assessment in Russia: Practical Applications and conclusions of the theory [Оценка Регулирующего Воздействия В России: Практика Применения И Выводы Из Теории]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 3.
    6. Stijn Voorst & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2019. "Evaluations as a decent knowledge base? Describing and explaining the quality of the European Commission’s ex-post legislative evaluations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 625-644, December.
    7. Yuya Kajikawa, 2022. "Reframing evidence in evidence-based policy making and role of bibliometrics: toward transdisciplinary scientometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5571-5585, September.
    8. Esposito, Giovanni & Cicatiello, Lorenzo & Ercolano, Salvatore, 2020. "Reforming railways in the EU: An empirical assessment of liberalisation policies in the European rail freight market," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 606-613.
    9. Daniel Antony Kolkman & Paolo Campo & Tina Balke-Visser & Nigel Gilbert, 2016. "How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 489-504, December.
    10. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    11. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    12. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Lehmann, Markus A., 2002. "Error minimization and deterrence in agency control," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 373-391, May.
    14. Tonja Jacobi, 2009. "The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 205-233, January.
    15. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    16. Prosman, Ernst Johannes & Cagliano, Raffaella, 2022. "A contingency perspective on manufacturing configurations for the circular economy: Insights from successful start-ups," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    17. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    18. Grohs, Reinhard & Raies, Karine & Koll, Oliver & Mühlbacher, Hans, 2016. "One pie, many recipes: Alternative paths to high brand strength," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2244-2251.
    19. Barry Cooper & Judith Glaesser, 2016. "Analysing necessity and sufficiency with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: how do results vary as case weights change?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 327-346, January.
    20. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    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:6:y:2012:i:1:p:23-45. 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.