Smart Legislative Regulation: Investigation of the Behavior of the Czech RIA Committee

• Autorzy: Julius Janáček , Libor Pacovský , Jiřina Jílková , Jindřich Jílek
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Motivation: This article studies the behavior of the Czech Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Committee during the years between 2013-2018. This institution assesses RIAs of new laws and regulations which are in the process of ratification. Aim: The main aim was to find if the legislative change of February 3, 2016 had a direct impact on the decision-making of the Committee. Further, we ask whether there are other distinct patterns in the behavior of Czech RIA Committee members. Specifically, do the RIA Committee's verdicts become more negative with time? We also investigate the level of independence of the Committee. In our analysis we used basic statistics: Chi-Square test of independence and regression analysis. To complete our study, we used data from a questionnaire which was distributed among RIA Committee members. Results: In our analysis we found that the legislative change did not have a direct immediate effect on the RIA Committee of the Czech Republic. However, we discovered that the RIA Committee has lost most of its independence and power in the six years of its existence. This change was gradual and most likely catalyzed by pressure from politicians. Further, voting per rollam yielded more positive results. We also discovered an institution whose RIA Committee verdicts differed significantly. Based on the findings of our research, we offer recommendations to the RIA Committee and other institutions with a similar purpose. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Legal regulations; Institutions

PL

Regulacje prawne; Instytucje

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Prawo
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: 20
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 763--778

Twórcy

autor

Julius Janáček

• Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem

autor

Libor Pacovský

• Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem

autor

Jiřina Jílková

• Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem

autor

Jindřich Jílek

• Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem

Bibliografia

• Ahituv, N., Igbaria, M., & Sella, A. (1998). The effects of time pressure and completeness of information on decision making. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518212.
• Alemanno, A. (2015). How much better is better regulation: assessing the impact of the better regulation package on the European Union, a research agenda. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(3), 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00004736.
• Atsan, N. (2016). Decision-making under stress and its implications for managerial decision-making: a review of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(3), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v6i3.936.
• Bronner, R. (1982). Decision-making under time pressure: experimental study of stress behaviour in business management. Lexington.
• Davidson, P., Kauffmann, C., & de Liedekerke, M.G. (2021). How do laws and regulations affect competitiveness: the role for regulatory impact assessment. OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, 15, 1-75. https://doi.org/10.1787/7c11f5d5-en.
• de Carvalho, B.E., Marques, R.C., & Netto, O.C. (2019). Rethinking Brasília's water services: 'new targets' using the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) tool. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 9(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2019.088.
• Erlandsson, M. (2008). Better regulation through impact assessments. ENBR Working Paper, 18, 1-15.
• Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. S. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192.
• Gunningham, N. & Grabosky, P. (1998). Smart regulation: designing environment policy. Clarendon Press.
• Hill, E.J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work: a comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3.
• Kamkhaji, J., Ladegaard, P., & Lundkvist, P. (2019). Risks when reforming: challenges and sustainability of RIA systems: results of the first systematic study on RIA reforms in developing countries. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(1), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2019.17.
• Kugler, T., Kausel, E.E., & Kocher, M.G. (2012). Are groups more rational than individuals: a review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science, 3(4), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1184.
• O'Regan, P. (2010). Regulation, the public interest and the establishment of an accounting supervisory body. Journal of Management & Governance, 14(4), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9102-0.
• OECD. (2008). OECD guiding principles for regulatory quality and performance. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056381-en.
• OECD. (2012). Recommendation of the Council on regulatory policy and governance. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.
• Oermann, M., & Schulz, W. (2019). Assessing policy III: regulatory impact assessment. In H. van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. van Audenhove (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research (pp. 575-593). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_33.
• Radaelli, C.M. (2009) Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(8), 1145-1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903332647.
• Ronan, W.W., Latham, G.P., & Kinne, S.B. (1973). Effects of goal setting and supervision on worker behavior in an industrial situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3), 302-307. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036303.
• Schmidtchen, D., Helstroffer, J., & Koboldt, C. (2021). Regulatory failure and the polluter pays principle: why regulatory impact assessment dominates the polluter pays principle. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 23(1), 109-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00285-4.
• Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402745.
• Staroňová, K. (2010). Regulatory impact assessment: formal institutionalization and practice. Journal of Public Policy, 30(1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x09990201.
• van Gossum, P., Arts, B., & Verheyen, K. (2010), From ''smart regulation'' to ''regulatory arrangements''. Policy Sciences, 43, 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-010-9108-0.
• van Humbeeck, P. (2007). Best practices in regulatory impact analysis: a review of the Flemish Region in Belgium. SERV Working Paper, 50, 1-50.
• Zilgalvis, P. (2014). The need for an innovation principle in regulatory impact assessment: the case of finance and innovation in Europe. Policy & Internet, 6(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI374.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2021.045