Search

Regulatory policy today is still grounded in principles and tools designed a few decades ago, but the context has changed significantly. To determine whether the current framework can help countries meet the challenges of contemporary societies, the OECD launched the Regulatory Policy 2.0 project. This report sets out the results from the second phase of the project, which included an exercise to map beliefs around better regulation. The exercise, involving government officials and regulatory experts, has identified four internally coherent belief systems about what better regulation is today, which core aims it should have, and where it should go in the future. Based on this analysis, the report provides empirical evidence and implications for the future direction of regulatory policy.

Calls for a strategy to improve the quality of the rules produced by the European Union (EU) date back to the early 1990s. During the last thirty years, this strategy has emerged in waves of ‘high quality regulation’ and ‘better regulation’. Since the early 2000s, this agenda has gradually taken its role in the EU policy process, especially at the stage of policy formulation (with the tools of consultation and impact assessment) and, in the last decade, with attempts to include other stages of policy process with tools for the retrospective review of legislaton and regulatory offsetting. Better regulation is an overall commitment binding the EU institution (with the inter-institutional agreement on better law-making agreed in 2016) 1 and the member states. The reality on the ground is that the Commission has deployed the tools of better regulation more intensively than the European Parliament and (even more so) the Council. Member states and the Commission are not always on the same page when it comes to the choice and specification of how to use the tools, and whether the political aim is to improve on regulatory quality or to reduce the quantity of rules. For all these nuances and political differences, today, better regulation is a formally endorsed working method of the European Commission (2019a). In the near future, the challenges concern the integration of foresight, the connection between different phases of the EU policy process (what in Commission’s parlance is known as ‘closing the policy cycle’, Mastenbroek et al. 2016), and policy coherence for sustainability. In this chapter, we outline the foundations of better regulation by reviewing the historical record tracing the main episodes. Specifically, we cover: the 1992 Edinburgh summit to the Mandelkern Report of 2001, the Prodi Commission’s package on regulatory reform, impact assessment and consultation, the dialogue between the Council and the Commission on setting targets for administrative burdens, the rise of regulatory oversight first with the Impact Assessment Board (2007) and then with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the Juncker-Timmermans vision for better regulation and the commitment to regulatory offsetting of the von der Leyden Commission. With the foundations laid, we finally explore what lies ahead.

Societies change and so do concepts and expectations about the governance of these societies. Accountability is such a concept, where expectations and demands from citizens and stakeholders have evolved over time with an increasing focus on sustainability aspects, calls for more regulatory coherence and increased awareness of citizens’ rights.

Innovation permeates the regulatory policy vision of European Union in the framework of the so-called ‘better regulation’ agenda. Even though both the Council and the Commission recognize the nexus between regulation and innovation, they seem to have different strategies. For the Commission, the need to steer innovation towards certain objectives justifies the introduction of new regulations. For the Council, new regulations should be appraised in terms of their likely impact on innovation. Empirically, we will test whether there are two different approaches by examining evidence from the Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council, think tanks reports on the innovation principle, and the text of the Commission’s regulatory proposals, including impact assessments (IAs), in the field of the Digital agenda of the EU. We find that the Commission is more interested in harnessing innovation towards goals such as ‘socially responsible innovation’ than in deploying tests on whether regulations may have negative effects on innovation. The findings contribute to the literature on EU regulation and innovation, showing how behind a common agenda for digital innovation the institutions of the EU have different approaches.

Reference to policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but the question of whether it qualifies as an analytical framework applicable to the policy process has yet to be systematically addressed. We therefore appraise learning as analytical framework in relation to four standards: assumptions and micro-foundations, conceptual apparatus, observable implications, normative applications. We find that policy learning meets the four standards, although its theoretical leverage varies across them. Since we are not aware of theories of the policy process that meet all of these standards all the time, we conclude that policy learning fares reasonably well and it's worth investing intellectual resources in this field.在公共政策文献中时常见到政策学习的参考资料, 但这样的参考资料是否能成为合格的分析框架, 应用于政策过程呢？这是还需要进行系统处理的问题。因此, 作者以四个标准评价了作为分析框架的政策学习。四个标准分别是：假设和微观基础、概念工具、可见的意义/影响, 以及规范性应用。作者发现, 政策学习达到了这四项标准, 尽管其在各项标准中的理论影响有所不同。由于本文并未发现能在任何时候都达到这些标准的政策过程理论, 结论认为, 政策学习是相当成功的, 并且值得对此领域投资智力资源。.La referencia al aprendizaje político es común en la literatura de la política pública, pero el interrogante de si esto califica como un marco analítico que se puede aplicar al proceso político todavía tiene que ser sistemáticamente abordado. Entonces evaluamos el aprendizaje como un marco analítico en relación con cuatro estándares: las suposiciones y las micro fundaciones; los aparatos conceptuales; las implicaciones observables; las aplicaciones normativas. Hallamos que el aprendizaje político cumple con los cuatro estándares, pero su ventaja teórica varía entre ellos. Ya que no estamos conscientes de teorías del proceso político que cumplan con todos estos estándares todo el tiempo, concluimos que el aprendizaje político se defiende razonablemente bien y tiene valor de inversión y recursos de inteligencia en este campo.

I am delighted to introduce you to the International Review of Public Policy (IRPP) also on behalf of the other editors, and excited to share with you our vision for this new journal. The flagship journal of the International Public Policy Association (IPPA), IRPP arises out of deliberations and commitments taken within the executive committee of the Association. It would not exist without the passion and dedication of the executive committee and the President and General Secretary of the Ass...

First published online: 16 April 2018 Policy learning is an attractive proposition, but who learns and for what purposes? Can we learn the wrong lesson? And why do so many attempts to learn what works often fail? In this article, we provide three lessons. First, there are four different modes in which constellations of actors learn. Hence our propositions about learning are conditional on which of the four contexts we refer to. Second, policy learning does not just happen; there are specific hindrances and triggers. Thus, learning can be facilitated by knowing the mechanisms to activate and the likely obstacles. Third, learning itself is a conditional final aim: although the official aspiration of public organisations and politicians is to improve on public policy, policy learning can also be dysfunctional – for an organisation, a policy, a constellation of actors or even democracy.

The paper examines public policy in the European Union (EU) by drawing upon the conceptual framework of policy transfer, which has been recently refined by comparativists, and the concept of isomorphism developed within organizational theory. Three case studies of EU policy transfer - namely monetary policy, tax policy, and media ownership policy - are discussed for assessing the potential of isomorphism for the analysis of policy diffusion. The author argues that European institutions, which have a serious political limitation in terms of legitimacy, stimulate policy transfer by catalysing isomorphic processes. Typically, isomorphism diffuses throughout the EU policy solutions already in place in one member state. By contrast, policy transfer is severely constrained when there are no national cases to be imitated. In this circumstance, however, European institutions, most notably the European Commission, can overcome the problem by "inseminating" solutions into national political systems.

An earlier version of the paper was delivered to the seminar series Engaging with Radical Ideas at the University of Exeter, 24 March 2011 (http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/radicalideas/). The transformations brought about by changing patterns of representation, the role of the media in politics, and processes of Europeanization and globalization have challenged the political parties of the West-European Left - and Italy is no exception to this trend. At the policy level, the four transformations have constrained the classic repertoire of the left. At the level of identities, they have pushed some parties to re-invent their core beliefs and re-shuffle their electoral strongholds, whilst other less successful parties have practically withered away. By contrast, right-wing and neo-populist parties have benefited from these four historical trends. These changes are somewhat congenial to them. For Left-wing parties, however, these changing patterns have led to ‘funerals’ of traditional practices and repertoires. In this article we look at the political repertoire of the Radical Party - established as Partito Radicale in 1955 in Italy and known today as Non-violent, Transparty, Transnational Radical Party. The Radicals have been able to theorize and approach the four challenges quite pro-actively, possibly because most of these transformations were already in their genetic code. The party, grounded in political liberalism, has produced a repertoire embracing global Gandhian transnational action on human rights, anti-militarism, sustainability and the fight against prohibitionist policies; a libertarian approach to scientific ‘disorganization’ of the classic party apparatus; and a notion of federalism grounded in the critique of the state as institution detrimental to liberties and welfare. We illustrate this original political repertoire and appraise its achievements. We finally critically discuss the repertoire in the broader context of Italian and European politics. Keywords Political parties, non-violence, liberalism, Italian Radical Party, Europeanization

Is there something new in recent research on Europeanisation? Or should we go back to what we already know about political integration in Europe and avoid the term? This article reviews recent work in four steps: the identification of the specific domain of Europeanisation; the relationship between Europeanisation, on the one hand, and governance, institutions, and discourse, on the other; the methodological problems and the models emerging in this new field of research; and an assessment of the results arising out of theoretical and empirical research. One theme throughout the article is that, in order to develop a progressive agenda, Europeanisation should be seen as a problem, not as a solution. It is neither a new theory, nor an ad-hoc approach. Rather, it is a way of orchestrating existing concepts and to contribute to cumulative research in political science. Europeanisation does not provide any simple fix to theoretical or empirical problems. Quite the opposite, it can deliver if approached as a set of puzzles. A problem in search of explanation not the explanation itself (Gualini 2003). The conclusion is that Europeanisation has contributed to the emergence of new insights, original explanations, and interesting questions on three important issues: the understanding and analysis of 'impact', how to endogeneise international governance in models of domestic politics, and the relationship between agency and change. These three issues are prominent in the research agendas of international relations, theoretical policy analysis, and comparative politics. To contribute to major issues at the core of political science is a valuable result for a relatively new field of inquiry.

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020.

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020.

The impact of energy policy measures has been assessed with various appraisal and evaluation tools since the 1960s. Decision analysis, environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment are all notable examples of progenitors of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in the assessment of energy policies, programmes and projects. This chapter provides overview of policy tools which have been historically applied to assess the impacts of energy policies, programmes and projects. It focuses on the types of data and models that typically inform RIAs for energy policies; the organisations involved; and issues of data exchange between energy companies and policy-makers. Examples are derived from the European Commission, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands and France. It is concluded that the technical and economic analysis underpinning RIAs on energy policy and regulation varies significantly depending on the type of organisation carrying them out.

The Politics of Europeanization looks at the political aspects of European integration from the viewpoint of domestic politics. In so doing, it goes beyond the classic analysis of ‘how policies are made in Brussels’ and raises instead the question ‘what is the power of Europe in national contexts?’.Whereas standard books on domestic politics and European integration look at different countries one by one, this volume embraces an innovative perspective based on specific concepts, indicators and a broad range of thematic issues. The contributors explain and question the ‘power of Europe’ by providing theoretical and empirical perspectives on domestic politics and institutions, government and administration, public policies, political actors, and business groups. The book has its origins in an international workshop on Europeanization organized while the editors were at the University of Bradford in May 2000, and a panel at the Political Studies Association annual conference the previous month; these initiatives were taken in the context of establishing the ‘Research Unit on Europeanization’ at the University of Bradford as a forum for activity in this area. It offers a new research agenda for the nascent literature on Europeanization. The book is arranged in six parts: I. Theorizing Europeanization (three chapters); II. Comparing Institutional Contexts (three chapters); III. Europeanization and Policy Analysis (three chapters); Interest Groups and Europeanization (two chapters); V. Understanding ‘Europe’ as a Policy Model (two chapters); and VI. Conclusion.

This introductory chapter defines the purpose of the book, which is to bring together recognized experts in the field to distinguish the conceptual meaning of ‘Europeanization’ and to analyse its empirical implications. In order to set the context it seeks to chart the uses of the term ‘Europeanization’ and to clarify how it will be used in the rest of the book. The aim is to provide some structure to the potential confusion of the uninitiated reader, whilst also mapping out key research areas. The main sections of the chapter are: A Typology of ‘Europeanization’; ‘Europeanization’ as a Conceptual Framework; ‘Europeanization’ as a Research Agenda; and Conclusion: The Utility of ‘Europeanization’.