Conclusions and outlook

• Author: Anglmayer, Irmgard
• Pages: 62-66

Bette r Regulation prac tices in natio nal parliaments

62

5.Conclusionsand outlook

Better Regulation is commonly rega rded a governmentmatter. However, as central actors in the

law-making process, parliaments are alsoincrea singly in volved. W hile in terna tional indices that

compare an d rank govern ments' performance in regulatorypolicyexist, little iscurrently k nown

about parliaments' role therein, and even less from a comparative perspective.

This study aims at fillingthisgap by shedding some light on parliamentary experiences in ex-ante

impact assessment and ex-post evaluation. Its core is a survey-ba sed analysis of individual

parliaments' engagement at both ends of the policy cycle, exploring the what, the how and the who

of regulato ry policy action. As expected, there is great variation in type a nd level of engagement,

spanning from passive scrutiny of government action to active impact assessment and evaluation

work.The cou ntr y sectio ns illust rate that there is no standard model for parliamentary involvement,

but ins tead, pa rliament s design t heir reg ulator y policy a ctivities a ccording to what wor ks best in

their specific context.Parliaments therefore complement rather than substitutingg ove rnment

action. One thing all parliaments have in common is th at their level of resources (in every respect)

cannot com pare with gover nments. Therefore, par liamentary process es and ou tputs re lat ing to

impact assessment and evaluation may b e quited istinctive from governmental Better Regulation

activities.

The added value of this study is t he broad sa mple of parliamentsit cov ers: 38. Thanks to the ECPRD

network and not least to the readiness of so many national parliaments to share their insights and

experience, this publication is able to provide an overview of the state of play of n atio nal

parliaments' Better Regulation practices. It cov ers all parliaments of the EU-27, and a further

11parliaments of Council of Europe countriesthat chose to participat e in the E PRS su rvey .

According to survey data, roughly half of the surveyed parliaments currently do not take any active

role in impact assessment or evaluation work (beyond t raditiona l scrut iny me chanisms). Fo r the

other half, the rationale for their B etter Regulat ion activ ities is pr imarily related to s crut iny and

accou ntability , and is thus avariant of parliaments' power to exercise over sight over the executive.

Beyond that, a few parliaments also use Better R egulation tools as part of t heir legislat ive funct ion.

Among those parliaments that ass ume an active role in impact a ssessment and/or e valua tion, the

spectrum of activities could not be broader: there are those with a high degree of institutionalisation

and those that have just begun. There are those with a systematicapproach, a long heritage,

extensive rights of access to information, mandatory government follow-up and even ev aluation

dut ies which are anchored in the national constitution. Atthe ot her end of the s pectrum, th ere are

parliaments th at have recentlyamendedtheir rules of procedure to allow for policy eva luat ion and

those that have run a fir st pilo t. A nd na turally,themajority of parliaments arein between.

The findings in figuresdemonstrate that: 17 national parliaments within the EU-27 eng age, to a

greateror lesser extent, in specific ex-ante impact a ssessment and/or ex-post ev aluation wo rk, in

addit ion t o the par liaments of four Council of Europe countries. Ten EU-27parliament s cover both

activ ities: Aus tria, B ulgaria, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden;as does

the Canadian Parliame nt. Th is st udy dep icts and reflects u pon the variety of th eir approaches, tools

and processes.

In add ition, this study has an idealist icpurpos e: it aims a t br inging p arlia ment s together, by giving

impet us to the forming of something like a community of practice. Mutual learning through

exchange of bes t pract ices may contribute to the fosteringof a Bet ter Regulation cultureamong

parliaments, so that they make fuller us e of t he potential Better Regulation offers. EPRS is certa inly

inter est ed in fo rming part o f such comm unity o f pract ice.