‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style Elizabeth Golberg September 2018 M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series | No. 98 The views expressed in the M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series have not undergone formal review and approval; they are presented to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government Weil Hall | Harvard Kennedy School | www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg [Type here] ‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style Elizabeth Golberg Senior Fellow Mossavar -Rahmani Centre for Business and Government Harvard Kennedy School Contents I. The analytical framework ............................................................................................................. 5 II. EU Regulatory Policy – context and drivers ............................................................................ 9 2.1 Setting the scene – ‘Better Regulation’ and EU Governance ................................................ 9 2.2. What prompted the drive for ‘Better Regulation’ at the European Commission? ............. 16 2.3 ‘Better Regulation’ – the Commission’s response ............................................................... 18 III. ‘Better Regulation’: the European Commission’s regulatory policy and tools .................. 22 3.1 The regulatory policy tools .................................................................................................. 23 IV. Is the system complete? Does it cover the most significant proposals? ............................. 30 4.1 The system ............................................................................................................................ 30 4.2 Outputs ................................................................................................................................. 30 4.3 Is the system proportionate, covering the most significant proposals? ................................ 31 V. How does the European Commission system compare to its American counterpart? .............. 34 VI. Does the system work well? Is it effective? ............................................................................. 38 6.1 How to assess effectiveness? ................................................................................................ 38 6.2 The ‘quality’ of the ‘Better Regulation’ products - the views of ‘scrutiny bodies’ ............. 39 6.3 ‘Better Regulation’ – facilitating legislative discussions? Improving implementation? ..... 44 6.4 Has ‘Better Regulation’ reduced costs and unnecessary regulatory burdens? ..................... 47 VII. Are the ‘Better Regulation’ outputs relevant? ..................................................................... 52 7.1 Were ‘Better Regulation’ tools a useful and relevant support in decision-making? ....... 52 7.2 Were the ‘Better Regulation’ efforts relevant to stakeholders? ........................................... 55 VIII. Weighing up the evidence ............................................................................................... 58 8.1 Observations ......................................................................................................................... 58 8.2 So why are there continued calls for a change in approach? ........................................... 61 IX. Would other approaches work better? .................................................................................... 63 9.1 Member State experience in target setting and regulatory budgeting .................................. 63 9.2 Are targets and regulatory budgeting feasible at EU level? ................................................. 68 X. Reflections on future orientations ............................................................................................. 70 Annex I Case studies – the analytical framework .......................................................................... 74 Annex II Case Study – the “Roaming” Regulation ........................................................................ 75 1. The policy and legal context 2006 – 2017 .......................................................................... 75 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 77 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 79 1 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 79 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ................... 82 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 82 4.1 To policy outcomes? ........................................................................................................ 82 4.2 To policy-making? ........................................................................................................... 82 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 83 Annex III Case Study – Air Quality Legislation ............................................................................ 85 1. The policy and legal context ............................................................................................... 85 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 86 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 88 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 88 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ....................... 88 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 89 4.1. In contributing to the achievement of policy goals and outcomes? ................................ 89 4.2 In contributing to better policy-making? .......................................................................... 90 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 90 Annex IV Case Study – Climate Change Policy ............................................................................ 91 1. The policy and legal context 2005 – 2017 .......................................................................... 91 2. ‘Better Regulation’ actions .................................................................................................. 92 3. The effectiveness of ‘Better Regulation’ instruments ......................................................... 94 3.1 Meeting quality standards ................................................................................................ 94 3.2 Facilitating adoption and reducing potential implementation difficulties ....................... 94 4. Did ‘Better Regulation’ make a difference? ....................................................................... 95 4.1. In contributing to better outcomes? ............................................................................. 95 4.2 In contributing to better policy-making? .......................................................................... 96 5. Observations ........................................................................................................................ 96 References ...................................................................................................................................... 98 2 ‘Better Regulation’: European Union Style The European Union is often criticised for producing too many – sometimes badly written - laws which interfere too much with the lives of citizens and business in areas better regulated at national or local level.1 Red tape and bureaucracy are seen as major failings of the EU.2 The European Commission, as the European Union executive, has responded to this criticism by giving priority to regulatory policy, termed ‘Better Regulation’. Using strategic planning, impact assessment, consultation and evaluation as its main tools, ‘Better Regulation’ aims to prepare and adapt EU policy and legislation in knowledge of its expected economic, environmental and social impacts, avoiding unnecessary burdens and red tape for citizens, businesses and public authorities. The assessment of regulation from the design phase to implementation, with public consultation throughout the process, has become systematic. Despite these efforts, EU Member States, business and a broad section of the public continue to express dissatisfaction with the volume and quality of legislation. The Member States and business groups call for reduction targets and regulatory budgeting schemes to contain the volume (and hence the costs) of legislation.3 Most recently, for example, the coalition agreement which forms the policy platform of the German government has called for the European Union to launch a ‘one in/one out’ scheme of regulatory budgeting.4 This raises questions about the European