The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe: comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion

Much has been written on the diffusion of public management and regulatory reform tools. Available evidence suggests that cross-national policy diffusion is an increasingly significant phenomenon, especially in the European context. While internationalisation of policy discourses and expert communities are regarded as key driving forces of policy diffusion, public management reforms are also said to be particularly vulnerable to mechanisms of 'diffusion without convergence'. This paper analyses the case of policies aiming at reducing administrative burdens of regulations through the lens of the literature on policy diffusion. The diffusion of the so-called Standard Cost Model for measuring administrative burden between 2003 and 2007 is used as a case to explore the mechanisms facilitating policy diffusion in this domain. The analysis reveals patterns of rapid diffusion. This policy boom has been driven by a combination of different mechanisms of policy diffusion rather than by a single driving factor

Behavioural insights and regulatory authorities

The rise of behavioural insights has been well-documented. This chapter focuses on economic regulators in Britain to explore in greater detail the initial appeal and (unintended) consequences of a behavioural insights-influenced agenda for regulatory agencies. The chapter suggests that rather than providing ‘low cost’ (and straightforward ‘evidence-based’) solutions to problems, the application of behavioural insights has generated a more sophisticated understanding of the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions and of the varied responses of consumers to regulation. This chapter first considers the contextual background that led to the adoption of behavioural insights across economic regulators, it then explores a number of ‘discoveries’ that emerged in the context of applying behavioural insights to issues in economic regulation and concludes by pointing to the broader implications of the British experience for regulation and to pathways for further research

The rationality paradox of Nudge: rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality

Nudge and the wider behavioural economics approach has become increasingly dominant in contemporary political and policy discourse. While much attention has been paid to the attractions and criticisms of Nudge (such as ‘liberal paternalism’), this paper argues that Nudge is based on a rationality ‘paradox’ in that it represents an approach that despite its emphasis on bounded rationality does not reflect on its own ‘limits to rationality’. The paper considers the implications of this paradox by considering mechanisms that influence government decision-making, and mechanisms that lead to unintended consequences in the context of policy interventions

Bureaucracy may be the solution, rather than the problem, for issues of European governance

The European Union is often criticised from the perspective that it has created a layer of bureaucracy or ‘red tape’ which has a damaging effect on European governance. Martin Lodge and Kai Wegrich write that while it is particularly common for political parties to make these arguments in the run up to European elections, legitimate and effective administration is at the heart of addressing the key governance challenges European countries must face in the future. They argue that any meaningful discussion about bureaucracy should focus on the question of ‘why’ certain interventions seem to work, and not simply on ‘what’ initiatives have previously worked in other contexts

Regulierung als Konzept und Instrument moderner Staatstätigkeit

Unter "Regulierung" versteht man primär staatliche Eingriffe, die im öffentlichen Interesse sowohl Marktversagen korrigieren wie auch zivilisatorische Risiken mindern sollen. Der Begriff ist ein Import aus dem angelsächsischen Sprachraum und hat sich vor allem durch die EU auch in der bundesdeutschen Politik ausgebreitet. Gleichwohl gibt es hierzulande noch kein einheitliches Begriffsverständnis. Regulierung wird nicht nur in verschiedenen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen mit unterschiedlichem Bedeutungsgehalt gefüllt, sondern ist auch in der politischen Praxis ein ausdeutungsfähiges Konzept. Der Aufsatz nimmt die so entstandenen Unklarheiten zum Anlass, um die verschiedenen Teildiskurse über Regulierung sowie die spezifisch deutsche Rezeption des Begriffes nachzuzeichnen. Die zentrale These lautet, dass Unterschiede nicht einfach "wegdefiniert" werden können, sondern eine verwirrungsfreie Verwendung des Regulierungsbegriffs nur dann möglich ist, wenn der jeweilige analytische oder auch praktische Verwendungskontext reflektiert und transparent gemacht wird."Regulation" is usually understood as intervention by state agencies to address market failure and social risks. Although representing a "linguistic import" from the Anglo-Saxon context, the "regulation" word was diffused in the German language context largely as a result of wider EU activities. However, a shared (Germanic) understanding of regulation has not yet emerged. The notion has not only been associated with different meanings in different academic disciplines, but it has also penetrated political practice. Taking the ambiguous nature of the concept of regulation as a starting point, this article explores different regulatory discourses and discusses specificities of the German debate on and understandings of the concept. The central claim is that different understandings cannot be ironed out by smart definitions. Instead, confusion in the usage of regulation is only avoidable if specific academic and practitioners' contexts are displayed in transparent and reflective ways

Developing policy evaluation in an academic setting : assets and challenges

Published: 19 April 2023Based on a seminar organized by LIEPP and CIVICA which took place at Sciences Po in June 2022, this publication brings together ten academic researchers from seven different CIVICA universities (Bocconi, CEU, EUI, Hertie School, LSE, Sciences Po, SNSPA), who are involved in various forms of policy evaluation. These contributions from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and the United Kingdom, reflect on the assets and challenges of developing policy evaluation in an academic setting. The seminar was organized as part of CIVICA’s research focus on “Democracy in the 21st century”, but through the crosscutting nature of program evaluation, it is also of interest to CIVICA’s three others research streams (on societies in transition, data, and Europe revisited). The aim of this debate is thus to better understand the specificities, assets and challenges of developing evaluation from within an academic setting, in view of eventually reflecting on possible ways to collectively reinforce this practice within CIVICA, and use CIVICA as a leverage to reinforce this practice. This debate is organized around two topics, developing academic evaluative research, and the role of academic institutions in outreach and training in evaluation. Contributions are based on presentations of the experiences of each CIVICA partner