IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v7y2013i3p348-364.html

Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • Christof Rissi
  • Fritz Sager

Abstract

Ex ante policy appraisals, such as Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), are promoted because they are expected to inform decisionmakers and, thus, to lead to better quality regulation. Such instrumental use is not the only possible use of RIAs. Ex ante policy appraisal can affect the policy process in various ways. However, a consolidated theory on the conditions for utilization of RIAs in the policy process has yet to be developed. In order to explore these conditions, we analyze three case studies of Swiss decisionmaking processes and apply concepts from knowledge utilization literature. In conclusion, we find that policy arenas matter more than the institutional context and design of RIA procedures. In line with previous literature, political use seems to be a prevalent type of utilization. Yet we find that, under specific conditions, RIAs also provide a basis for the optimization of policy designs (instrumental use), help improve interagency relations (policy‐process use), and may change how a policy issue is understood (conceptual use).

Suggested Citation

  • Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:7:y:2013:i:3:p:348-364
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12002?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. John Turnpenny & Måns Nilsson & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan & Julia Hertin & Bjorn Nykvist, 2008. "Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 759-775.
    2. 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.
    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. Christoph Ossege, 2015. "Driven by Expertise and Insulation? The Autonomy of European Regulatory Agencies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 101-113.

    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. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.
    2. Aryanpur, Vahid & Atabaki, Mohammad Saeid & Marzband, Mousa & Siano, Pierluigi & Ghayoumi, Kiarash, 2019. "An overview of energy planning in Iran and transition pathways towards sustainable electricity supply sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 58-74.
    3. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Royston, Sarah & Selby, Jan & Shove, Elizabeth, 2018. "Invisible energy policies: A new agenda for energy demand reduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-135.
    5. repec:rnp:ecopol:ep1432 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Hyder, Kieran & Rossberg, Axel G. & Allen, J. Icarus & Austen, Melanie C. & Barciela, Rosa M. & Bannister, Hayley J. & Blackwell, Paul G. & Blanchard, Julia L. & Burrows, Michael T. & Defriez, Emma & , 2015. "Making modelling count - increasing the contribution of shelf-seas community and ecosystem models to policy development and management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 291-302.
    8. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Kate Crowley & Brian W. Head, 2017. "The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 539-547, December.
    11. Aquila, Giancarlo & de Oliveira Pamplona, Edson & Ferreira Filho, José Alberto & da Silva, Antônio Sergio & de Azevedo Mataveli, João Victor & Correa, João Ederson & de Maria, Mateus Sanches & Garcia,, 2019. "Quantitative regulatory impact analysis: Experience of regulatory agencies in Brazil," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-1.
    12. John Turnpenny & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2014. "The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, April.
    13. Dave Huitema & Andrew Jordan & Eric Massey & Tim Rayner & Harro Asselt & Constanze Haug & Roger Hildingsson & Suvi Monni & Johannes Stripple, 2011. "The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 179-198, June.
    14. Kolkman, Daan, 2020. "The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making," SocArXiv hpma8, Center for Open Science.
    15. Ryan Wong & Jeroen van der Heijden, 2022. "How does symbolic commitment strengthen the resilience of sustainability institutions? Exploring the role of bureaucrats in Germany, Finland, and the UK," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 10-22, February.
    16. Peter Tangney & Michael Howes, 2016. "The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1115-1134, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Mitoko, Jeremiah, 2021. "Economics of Microcredit-From current crisis to new possibilities," MPRA Paper 108392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Moein Khazaei & Elham Elmi & Fatemeh Gholian-Jouybari & Mostafa Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, 2026. "Environment-system conflict (ENSY) in policy making and strategic analysis: a case study of hydrogen energy," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-22, March.
    21. Mirjat, Nayyar Hussain & Uqaili, Mohammad Aslam & Harijan, Khanji & Valasai, Gordhan Das & Shaikh, Faheemullah & Waris, M., 2017. "A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-127.

    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:7:y:2013:i:3:p:348-364. 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.