Presentation by Christiane Arndt, OECD Secretariat, at the 11th annual meeting of the OECD Senior Budget Officials Performance and Results network, OECD, 26-27 November 2015.

1. EVALUATION OF REGULATIONS
AND BEYOND
Annual meeting of the OECD Senior Budget Officials
Performance and Results Network
27 November 2015
Christiane Arndt, Head of Programme
Measuring Regulatory Performance,
OECD Regulatory Policy Division

2. Policy cycle –
Is regulation the right policy instrument?

3. How does RIA work?

4. • Commitment of political leaders
• Support from stakeholders
• Raising awareness among civil servants
for the benefits of better regulation;
Guidance/ Training of civil servants
• Oversight and quality control of the RIA
process
How to ensure that RIA does not
become a tick box exercise?

5. Types of ex post reviews
Programmed reviews Ad hoc reviews Ongoing ‘management’
•Sunsetting
•Embedded in statute
•Post implementation
reviews
– process failure
– catch-all
•Public stocktakes
– economy-wide
– sectoral
•‘Principles-based’
reviews
•Benchmarking
•‘In-depth’ reviews
•Regulator strategies
•Stock-flow linkages
– Budgets
– ‘In-Out’ / ‘Offsets’
– RIA based
consideration
•Red tape reduction
targets
Source: Banks, Gary (2013). Reviewing the Regulatory ‘Stock’: reflections from Australia. 5th Expert workshop on
Measuring Regulatory Performance, OECD. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/stockholm-workshop.htm

6. Definition:
In-depth reviews are comprehensive reviews, focusing on
the nature and extent of regulation in specific industries,
policy areas or sectors and its effects.
• 10 OECD countries have conducted in-depth reviews of policy
areas or sectors in the last 12 years
• 9 OECD countries have a standing body that conducted such
reviews in the last 3 years
In-depth Reviews

7. Assessing countries‘ evaluation
systems

8. All countries have taken measures to
make RIA part of their policy process
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG): Regulatory Impact Assessment for developing primary laws
Methodology Systematic adoption Transparency
Oversight and quality control OECD average
Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four
separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure
excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and
Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%).
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm.

9. Few countries systematically evaluate
regulations ex-post
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG): Ex post evaluation for primary laws
Methodology Systematic adoption Transparency
Oversight and quality control OECD average
Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The
maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm.

10. In less than one third of countries all ex post evaluations
contain an assessment of the achievement of goals
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Primary laws
Numberofjurisdictions
Do ex post evaluations contain an assessment of whether the underlying
policy goals of regulation have been achieved?
All ex-post evaluations
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG),
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm

11. Most OECD countries have systematically adopted
stakeholder engagement practices, yet often late in
the process
Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four
separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure
excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and
Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%).
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015,
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm.

12. The weakest category is oversight and
quality control
Sum of category scores over the three composite indicators
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Systematic Adoption Methodology Transparency Oversight and Quality Control
Note: Scores represent the average of primary laws and subordinate regulations, except for the scores of Regulatory Impact Assessment and
Stakeholder Engagement for the United States, for which only the results for subordinate regulations are used.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG),
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm

13. Institutional Setting –
Who prepares ex post evaluations?
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG),
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm
Number of Jurisdictions
27
14
13
10 10
7
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Official/department
developing the
regulation
Private-sector
consultants
Academics Standing body Group or committee
outside government
Unit in
the parliament
or legislature
Other

14. 1. Should there be a more holistic approach
to evaluation?
2. What institutional setting is necessary to
ensure high-quality and unbiased
information?
3. How to ensure evaluation feeds into real-
life policy-making?
Questions for Discussion

15. Contact details
• Christiane Arndt, Head of Programme, Measuring Regulatory
Performance: Christiane.Arndt@oecd.org
• Rebecca Schultz, Junior Policy Analyst, Measuring Regulatory
Performance: Rebecca.Schultz@oecd.org
Further information
• Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015 Website:
http://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2015-
9789264238770-en.htm
• OECD Regulatory Policy
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/
• Measuring Regulatory Performance Website:
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-
performance.htm
• Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance
http://www.oecd.org/governance/regulatory-policy/2012-recommendation.htm
Contact details and further information