Recent Trends in Regulatory Design - Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Impact Assessment

Renata Śliwa

doi:10.35765/hp.2177

Published : 2022-02-08

Vol. 13 No. 42 (2022)

Recent Trends in Regulatory Design - Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Impact Assessment

Renata Śliwa

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5029-8798

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35765/hp.2177

Section: Thematic Articles

Abstract

Research objective: Justification of stakeholder engagement as a possible pillar of efficient regulatory governance

The research problem and methods: To visualize the significance of stakeholder engagement to regulation, the OECD data on stakeholder engagement are interpreted. Then, the case studies of the stakeholder engagement within regulatory impact assessment procedures in the European Union, Korea and the United Kingdom are highlighted. The methodology is based on the comparative analysis of the OECD secondary data and case study comparative analysis.

The process of argumentation: Starting from a view of regulatory policy as the realization of policy goals with regulation, law, and other instruments through which a higher standard of living of the population can be achieved. Concluding with the reasoning that stakeholder engagement is a crucial component of a check-and-balance mechanism in regulatory governance.

Research results: The stakeholder-engagement-driven three-layer division covers: Policy-driven layer (strategy) determined by the contemporary challenges stemmed from emancipation of association consciousness and movements and ICT revolution; Administration-driven layer (operationalization) determined by effectiveness and efficiency as well as public service imperatives; Governance-driven layer serving as the exponent of varieties of conflicting and complementing ideas and interest of social groups, check and balance in the process of monitoring, legitimization and accountability of regulators while wide-spreading the essential public services.

Conclusions, innovations, and recommendations: Stakeholder engagement as a crucial part of regulatory impact assessment has been the pivotal element of the systemic adjustments reaching out to the behavioral adaptations, and to the institutionalization of evidence-based policy making.

Keywords

stakeholders’ engagement ; regulatory impact assessment ; regulatory trends

Details

References

Indicators

Authors

Download files

PDF (Język Polski)

Zasady cytowania

Altmetric indicators

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise to use any of the following reserach society portals:

References

Amery, L. S. (1953). Thoughts on the Constitution. London: Oxford University Press.

Betley, A. F. (1949). The Process of Government. Evanston: Principia Press.

Sunstein, C. R.91985). Interest Groups in American Public Law. 38 Stanford Law Review 29 (1985).

Coker, F. (1934). Recent Political Thought. New York: Appleton-Centrury-Crofts.

Commons, J. (1950). Economics of Collective Action, New York: Macmillan.

Commons, J., (1959). Institutional Economics: Its Place in Political Economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Durkheim, E. (1897). Le Suicide. Etude de sociologie. Paris: Felix Alcan.

Durkheim, E. (1947). The Division of Labor in Society, Glencoe: Free Press.

Elbow, M. H. (1953). French Corporative Theory 1789-1948. New York: Columbia University Press.

Genakos, C., Verboven, F., & Valletti, T. (2018). Evaluating market consolidation in mobile communications. Economic Policy, 33(93).

Global Competitiveness Report 2019; http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2019/competitiveness-rankings/ (retrieved 20.09.2020).

Menard, C., Shirley, M. M. (ed.).(2008). Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer Science&Business Media.

Henry, N. (1975). Paradigms of public administration, Public Administration Review. 35, 378-386.

Henry, N. (2007). Public administration and public affairs. 10th edition. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Kattel, R. (2015). What would Max Weber say about public-sector innovation?. The NISPACEE Journal of Public Administration and Policy. vol. VIII, no. 1.

Latham E. (1952). The Group Basis of Politics. Cornell University Press.

Levy B., Spiller P.T. (1994). The Institutional Foundations of Regulatory Commitment: A Comparative Analysis of Telecommunications Regulation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization no 10.

McGinnis M., Ostrom E. (2011). Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, Public Administration, and Polycentricity. Public Administration Review. vol. 72, No. 1.

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Pubic Value: Strategic Management in government, Cambridge: HUP.

OECD, Government at Glance. Regulatory Governance, OECD.Stat; https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=85336 (retrieved 7.05.2021).

OECD. (2017). Regulatory Policy in Korea. Towards better regulation, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform. OECD. p. 87.

OECD. (2020). Reviewing the Stock of Regulation, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. OECD.

Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HUP.

Ostrom Elinor and the Bloomington Scholl of Political Economy: Polycentricity in Public Administration and Political Science. vol. 1. D. H. Cole, M. D. McGinnis (ed). (2015). London: Lexington Books.

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, Ch. M., Warren R. (1961). The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review. 55(4).

Ostrom V. (1997). The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Ostrom, V. (1965). Editorial Comment: On the Frontiers of the Great Society. Public Administration Review. 25(1).

Ostrom, V. (1991). The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Ostrom, V. (2008). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Ostrom, V. (2008). The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Peters, B. G. (2003). The changing nature of public administration: from easy answers to hard questions. Viesoji Politika ir Administravimas. no. 5, 1-1.

Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. New York: Farrar&Rinehart.

Pollitt, Ch., Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Managemnet Reform: A Comparative Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.

Renda, A. (2006). Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State. CEPS Paperbacks. Brussels.

Ricketts, M. (2000), Comment - The Role of the State in Making a Market Economy. Journal of institutional and theoretical economics. Vol. 156, 95.

Roepke, W. (1954). Free Economy and Social Order. The Freeman. 11, January.

Schacter H. L., Toonen T. (2010). Resilience in Public Administration: The Work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom from a Public Administration Perspective. Public Administration Review, vol. 70, no 2.

Stelmach, J., Brożek, B., Załuski, W. (2007). Dziesięć wykładów o ekonomii prawa, Warszawa: Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business.

Tocqueville, de A. (1876). Democracy in America, vol. 1. Boston: John Allyn.

Torfing, J., Andersen, L. B., Greve, C., Klausen, K. K. (2020). Neo-weberian State, in: Public Governance Paradigms. Competing and Co-Existing, Policy, Administrative and Institutional Change series, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Truman, D. B. (1951).The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Weber, M. (2002). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriß der Verstehenden Soziologie, 5th edition, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Netography:

Contribute to law making https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/contribute-law-making (retrieved 03.03.2020).

Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1–14; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016Q0512%2801%29 (retrieved 21.03.2019).

Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2018-19; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint-declaration-eu-legislative-priorities-2018-19_en.pdf; Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint-declaration-legislative-priorities-2017-jan2017_en.pdf (retrieved 21.03.2019).

OECD (2019a). Better Regulation Practices across the European Union, OECD; https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/better-regulation-practices-across-the-european-union_9789264311732-en#page17 (retrieved 21.03.2020)

OECD (2019b). Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, Europe 2019, European Union; retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-of-regulatory-policy-and-governance-2019-eu.pdf (retrieved 28.05.2020).

Published Initiatives, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives (retrieved 03.03.2020)

Total abstract views : 110

PDF Downloads : 170