More inclusive European governance through impact assessments?
Tóm tắt
In this article, we present an overall picture of the inclusiveness of IA, based on data on over 800 IAs carried out by all DGs of the European Commission from 2003 to 2013. According to official guidelines, IAs can deliver a variety of goals, and we posit that each goal can be linked to a different inclusion strategy. Specifically, we consider that the goal of coordination requires the inclusion of Commission actors, the goal of collecting neutral expertise requires the involvement of working and expert groups, while pursuing input-legitimacy requires a large number of stakeholders as well as online consultation open to the general public to be part of the procedure. Our findings reveal that DGs tend to prioritise coordination over collection of expertise and input legitimacy and that experience in carrying out IAs favours a more participatory approach, meaning that the more DGs make use of IA the more they will tend to include stakeholders and to launch public consultation. On the whole, the analysis highlights the importance of learning to fully develop the potential of the ambitious EU IA regime.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bäcklund, A.K. (2009) Impact assessment in the European Commission – A system with multiple objectives. Environmental Science and Policy 12 (8): 1077–1087.
Broscheid, A. and Coen, D. (2007) Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU: Empirically exploring the nature of the policy good. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3): 346–365.
Coen, D. and Katsaitis, A. (2013) Chameleon pluralism in the EU: An empirical study of the European Commission interest group density and diversity across policy domains. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (8): 1104–1119.
Dunlop, C., Maggetti, M., Radaelli, C. and Russel, D. (2012) The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation and Governance 6 (1): 23–45.
European Commission (2002) Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, COM (2002) 704.
European Commission (2009) Impact assessment guidelines, SEC (2009) 92.
Gornitzka, Å. and Swerdrup, U. (2008) Who consults? The configuration of expert groups in the European Union. West European Politics 31 (4): 725–750.
Greenwood, J. (2007) Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 333–357.
Hertin, J., Jacob, K., Pesch, U. and Pacchi, C. (2009) The production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment – An empirical analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6): 413–421.
Radaelli, C. and Meuwese, A.C.M. (2009) Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration 87 (3): 639–654.
Rowe, G.C. (2006) Tools for the control of political and administrative agents: Impact assessment and administrative governance in the European Union. In: H.C.H Hofmann and A.H. Turk (eds.) EU Administrative Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgard, pp. 448–511.
Torriti, J. and Lofstedt, R. (2012) The first five years of the EU impact assessment system: A risk economics perspective on gaps between rationale and practice. Journal of Risk Research 15 (2): 169–186.
Trubek, D. and Scott, J. (2002) Mind the gap: Law and new approaches to governance in the European Union. European Law Journal 8 (2): 1–18.
Turnpenny, J., Radaelli, C.M., Jordan, A. and Jacob, K. (2009) The policy and politics of policy appraisal: Emerging trends and new directions. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (4): 640–53.