EX-POST
REGULATORY
REVIEWS IN OECD
COUNTRIES
Daniel Trnka
Regulatory Policy Division
OECD
Ljubljana, 13 December 2016
Background
• Large stock of regulation has accumulated
over time
• Sometimes led to a “regulatory jungle”
• May impede competition, employment,
innovation
• Pressures from both sides – to diminish
regulatory burden while protecting even
more
• Need of systematic, periodic reviews and
simplification to keep regulations “fit for
purpose”
Multiple costs of regulation
Benefits foregone if
regulation is ineffective
Economic distortions
C os ts to co mm un ity



dead weight losses
lower investment
lower innovation
Substantive compliance
costs


investments in systems
training
higher cost of investment
Administrative costs to
business


Administration cost to
regulators
paper work time
reporting time
Fees and charges
a
‘Distortion’ costs
Compliance costs
Costs to government
Costs to business
Costs to community
b
Bene f ts
i ne eded to ju stify co sts
 other perverse effects
 other ‘non -market’
distortions
Reviews of regulations
• Increasingly popular, not only among
transforming countries
• Differences in goals, techniques, criteria,
co-ordination mechanisms
• Are regulations meeting the objectives for
which they were created?
• Different criteria – legality, obsoleteness,
user-friendliness, complexity…
• Three basic types:
Ex-post evaluation - approaches
Stock
management
reviews
• Regulator-based
strategies
• Stock-flow rules
• Red tape
reduction net
targets
Ongoing
Programmed
mechanisms
• Sun-setting
• Ex-post review
requirements in
new regulation
• Post
implementation
reviews
At a set time
Ad-hoc/special
purpose reviews
• Stocktakes of
burden
• Principles-based
• Benchmarking
• In-depth reviews
As needed
Efforts vs. impacts
Potentially high return
Low effort
High effort
Potentially low return
Ø
Ø
Ø
Frequent stocktakes
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Sunsetting
Ø
Known high cost areas and known
solutions from past reviews
Ø
Regulator management strategies
where weak in the past
Periodic stocktakes
Broad redtape cost estimation
Regulatory budgets and one-in onea
out
Regulator stock management
Red tape targets
b
RIS stock-flow link
Ø
In-depth reviews
Embedded statutory reviews
Benchmarking
Packaged sunset reviews
Most evaluation is ad hoc, focusing on
administrative burden
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatorypolicy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm
Underlying goals of regulation are not yet
the main focus
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG),
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm
Examples of regulatory reviews
•
•
•
•
Canada and Australia – periodically
Italy, Korea, Mexico
UK, USA, Japan
Many non-member countries – Balkan
countries, Vietnam
Ten key points for a successful
regulatory review
1.
Sustain top-level political support
2. Engage with regulators to maintain momentum
3. Involve businesses and other stakeholders
4. Partner with legislators
5. Plan, organise, and provide guiding criteria for the review
6. Organise regulatory reviews in stages
7. Provide capacity building and guidance
8. Measure the benefits if possible
9. Communicate to the wider public
10. Take preventive action for the flow of regulations and
envisage regular “clean up” with periodical reviews
Vietnam - coordination structure
Administrative simplification
•
Dealing with the stock of regulation – review,
consolidation and codification
•
Streamlining of procedures, harmonising, onestop shops
•
Employing ICTs, data sharing
•
Risk-based approaches (inspections)
•
Measurement and reduction of administrative
burden
•
Common Commencement Dates, One-In OneOut
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
www.oecd.org/regreform
[email protected]