Organizing for Impact Assessment: Patterns of RIA Implementation in CEE

Transcription

1 1 Organizing for Impact Assessment: Patterns of RIA Implementation in CEE Katarína Staroňová Ústav verejnej politiky a ekonómie Fakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave

2 Overview Research question: - What is the pattern of RIA institutionalization and implementation in CEE? - Does RIA foster the strength of executive center (and regulatory control)? Observing micro-levels of implementation change in 5 cases: longitudinal qualitative research Focus on: Czech republic, Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia

3 3 Institutionalization and implementation Scope of RIA (targeting RIA) Presence of coordinating and oversight/quality control body (independent review) Existance of guidelines/trainings Consultation process Structural issues (options, data collection methods and analyses) RIA- the process of systematically assessing the likely effects of a range of proposed regulations and other measures

4 Policy Making Framework for RIA adoption Legal formalism vs. Policy Making Set by Constitution and laws, mainly legislative procedure of Government and Parliament: focus on technical issues of legislative drafting No formal rules or guidelines to policy development Legislation key policy instrument (not linked to budgeting) : low quality of products Central coordination capacity limited 1st Phase - Adoption: most of CEE countries within timeframe of , 2nd Phase - Implementation: RIA modernization and adaptation around 2010

5 Institutional background Aspects Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Slovakia Slovenia Policy on Better Regulation adopted Body responsible for Better regulation Ministry of Interior (moved from Government Office in 2006) Ministry of Justice + State Chancellory Ministry of Justice Ministry of Economy Ministry of Public Administration IA system adopted 1998 (January 2008 in effect) IA system updated Legislative Quality assurance review body IA overseeing body Strategic planning coordination Special unit or analysts within ministry assisting with IA Until 2006 Government Office, MoInterior, from 2010 Government Office + From 2012 RIA Committee State Chancellory, Ministry Justice, Parliament From 2012 MoJustice PMO office, from 2010 MoPA&J Ministry of Justice 2008, in full adoption 2011 since 2010 four supervising bodies No State Chancellory no No Special department in Ministry of Interior From 2012 each ministry From 2011 ECOSTAT Gvt. Center for RIA Since 2010 in 4 supervising ministries 2009 Government Office for Legislation no The Government Office for Development and European Affairs no

6 1st phase: Situating IA within Existing Political Architectures Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Slovakia Slovenia IA system adopted 1998 (January 2008 in effect) IA Scope All legislation for Government session All legislation for parliamentary session All legislation for Government session All legislation for Government session All legislation for Government session IA guidelines, trainings Prepared by Government Office in 2005 (pilot), not adopted Prepared by State Chancellory in 2005, adopted Prepared by Ministry of Justice in , not adopted no Prepared by Ministry of Economy in 2006, not adopted Legislative Quality assurance review body State Chancellory, Ministry Justice, Parliament PMO office, from 2010 MoPA&J Government Office for Legislation IA overseeing body Until 2006 Government Office, MoInterior, no MoJustice no no Strategic planning coordination No State Chancellory no No no Special unit or analysts within ministry assisting with IA Special department in Ministry of Interior no no no no

7 1st Phase results: Adoption, no implementation Scope: All legal texts (no administrative capacity) Formalism: IA made ex post to fulfill bureaucratic measure and legitimizing decisions (symbolic policies Radaelli) Absence of clear methodology, guidance and training (interpretations, how to conduct, etc.) Structural issues: no options, consultation=interministerial review process Absence of supervision and quality control mechanism (except for Estonia)

8 8 Modernizing IA systems across EE countries from 2010 Scope of IA - Application of a two-tier process: - Preliminary vs. full IA: Czech republic - Quick Test: Slovakia - Introductory policy document: Estonia (??? As of 2014) - Delegated complicated assessments: Hungary Anchoring Supervising Body into the System: - IA Committee: Czech republic - 1 Body: Estonia (MoJustice), Hungary (MoPAJ) - Several Bodies: Slovakia (4) Structural Issues of IA: - consultation process: Estonia, Czech republic, Hungary - Options: Czech republic Linking IA to EU policy making: Slovenia

9 9 2nd phase: Adaptation Aspects Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Slovakia Slovenia IA system adopted 1998 (January 2008 in effect) IA system updated Legislative Quality assurance review body IA guidelines and trainings IA overseeing body Strategic planning coordination Special unit or analysts within ministry assisting with IA Prepared by Government Office in 2005 (pilot), adopted in 2008, 2011 Until 2006 Government Office, MoInterior, from 2010 Government Office + From 2012 RIA Committee State Chancellory, Ministry Justice, Parliament Prepared by State Chancellory in 2005, adopted From 2012 MoJustice PMO office, from 2010 MoPA&J Prepared by Ministry of Justice in , adopted in 2011 From 2011 Ministry of Justice (ECOSTAT) 2008, in full adoption 2011 Prepared by 4 ministries in 2008, adopted in 2011 since 2010 four supervising bodies No State Chancellory no No Special department in Ministry of Interior From 2012 each ministry From 2011 ECOSTAT Gvt. Center for RIA Since 2010 in 4 supervising ministries 2009 Government Office for Legislation Prepared by Ministry of Economy in 2006, not adopted no The Government Office for Development and European Affairs no

10 2nd phase results: RIA becoming part of a system? Anchoring into existing Legislative/Strategic Planning system (adaptation) Strong actors Establishing central coordinating (and quality control) unit Limiting volume of material to which RIA is required: sophistications of methods used Development of the tool (Preparing manuals and guidelines to assist fulfillment and implementation of the legislation for civil servants) Development of the capacity (Designating specific posts within civil service to deal with some of the issues more specifically: network of professionals +