In line with EU regulation policies and for the benefit of the national governments, parliaments and the public, as well as the European Parliament, the Commission proposal to establish the first radio spectrum programme (RSPP) for the European Union COM(2010) 471 was accompanied by two Commission Staff Working documents.
A summary of the impact assessment was published in 22 official EU languages.
The English version of the IA summary:
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme; Brussels, 20.9.2010 SEC(2010) 1035 final (9 pages)
According to the bibliographic notice on Eur-Lex, the full impact assessment has been published published only in English:
IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme; Brussels, 20.9.2010 SEC(2010) 1034 final (78 pages)
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label impact assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impact assessment. Show all posts
Monday, 6 June 2011
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Smart Regulation in the European Union
Yesterday we looked at the number of EU regulations and directives. We also made some general remarks about the benefits of business regulation at EU level, the regulatory burden versus potential benefits, and the better regulation agenda of the European Commission, including the recent evaluation of impact assessments: How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010).
We turn to the Smart Regulation Communication from the Commission, available on the Better regulation pages (but not on Eur-Lex):
Smart Regulation in the European Union; Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final (11 pages)
The Communication is available in German “Intelligente Regulierung” and in French “Une réglementation intelligente”.
“Moses” Barroso?
The introduction discusses the lack of regulation as a cause for the financial, economic and sovereign debt crises, newish policy objectives, such as financial stability and climate change, as well as the costs of a fragmented single market. On the other hand, it duly remembers the importance of businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth envisioned by the Europe 2020 strategy, so the regulatory burden has to be limited to what is strictly necessary.
No wonder that Commission president José Manuel Barroso has taken upon himself to lead the European Union from the Egypt of better regulation to the Promised Land of smart regulation.
Key messages
The key messages are (page 3):
Here are some remarks on the first key message, which concerns mainly EU level action.
Evaluating existing legislation
One of the points in the first key message was the emphasis on evaluating the costs and benefits of existing EU legislation. Initial steps have been taken with regard to public procurement, professional qualifications and working conditions, but this approach has to become an integral part of smart regulation. Especially the member states have untapped opportunities to simplify legislation and to reduce regulatory burdens (page 4).
The Commission promises more comprehensive evaluations of whole policy areas, so called fitness checks, as opposed to individual legal acts (page 4-5).
“Fitness checks” have been launched in 2010 for areas in environment, transport, employment/social policy and industrial policy. This will be extended to other policy areas in 2011 on the basis of these experiences (page 5).
Impact assessments
The Commission underlines the importance of impact assessments and the work done by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), and it refers to the evaluation made by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The Commission rejects an outside body to control impact assessments as an infringement of its prerogatives, but it promises to improve consultation processes.
After guidance on social impacts, the Commission intends to improve the assessment of impacts on fundamental rights.
The Commission admits that impact assessments should quantify costs and benefits, but it refers to the difficulties in quantifying national implementation measures (pages 6-7).
***
The sections on shared responsibilities between EU institutions and the opportunities for national authorities are worth reading. The Commission is going to extend the consultation period for proposals to twelve weeks, in order to give stakeholders and citizens more time to react. A progress report on the smart regulation agenda is promised during the second half of 2012.
Marketplace of ideas
My impression is that the ‘smart regulation’ agenda builds on good experiences, and it envisions sensible improvements.
However, there still seems to be too little quality discussion in public between the EU and national levels and various stakeholders, both business and wider societal interests. The Commission’s promise to improve consultations is a step in the right direction, but the other players need to open up as well and be less reliant on quiet lobbying.
In part they already communicate actively online, but mainly unidirectionally on their own websites. Perhaps the interest groups (stakeholders) should become more engaged in the public marketplace of ideas, participating in online discussions through social media.
It is increasingly hard to find European enterprises, public authorities or interest groups outside the public marketplace of ideas, without an active social media presence. Few of them are untouched by politics and policies at European Union level.
Politics, policies, economics and law at EU level are becoming more important in a globalising world, at least if Europeans still want to weigh in, instead of member states being picked off like clay pigeons.
EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator. There is still room for professional quality blogging on various aspects of EU politics and policies.
As a reader, you can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Ralf Grahn
We turn to the Smart Regulation Communication from the Commission, available on the Better regulation pages (but not on Eur-Lex):
Smart Regulation in the European Union; Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final (11 pages)
The Communication is available in German “Intelligente Regulierung” and in French “Une réglementation intelligente”.
“Moses” Barroso?
The introduction discusses the lack of regulation as a cause for the financial, economic and sovereign debt crises, newish policy objectives, such as financial stability and climate change, as well as the costs of a fragmented single market. On the other hand, it duly remembers the importance of businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth envisioned by the Europe 2020 strategy, so the regulatory burden has to be limited to what is strictly necessary.
No wonder that Commission president José Manuel Barroso has taken upon himself to lead the European Union from the Egypt of better regulation to the Promised Land of smart regulation.
Key messages
The key messages are (page 3):
First, smart regulation is about the whole policy cycle - from the design of a piece of legislation, to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and revision. We must build on the strengths of the impact assessment system for new legislation. But we must match this investment with similar efforts to manage and implement the body of existing legislation to ensure that it delivers the intended benefits. This requires a greater awareness by all actors of the fact that implementing existing legislation properly and amending it in the light of experience is as important as the new legislation we put on the table.
Second, smart regulation must remain a shared responsibility of the European institutions and of Member States. These actors have made varied progress, and the Commission will continue to work with them to ensure that the agenda is actively pursued by all. This must be accompanied by a greater recognition that smart regulation is not an end in itself. It must be an integral part of our collective efforts in all policy areas.
Third, the views of those most affected by regulation have a key role to play in smart regulation. The Commission has made great strides in opening its policy making to stakeholders. This can also be taken a step further and the Commission will lengthen the period for its consultations, and carry out a review of its consultation processes to see how to strengthen the voice of citizens and stakeholders further. This will help to put into practice the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty on participatory democracy.
Here are some remarks on the first key message, which concerns mainly EU level action.
Evaluating existing legislation
One of the points in the first key message was the emphasis on evaluating the costs and benefits of existing EU legislation. Initial steps have been taken with regard to public procurement, professional qualifications and working conditions, but this approach has to become an integral part of smart regulation. Especially the member states have untapped opportunities to simplify legislation and to reduce regulatory burdens (page 4).
The Commission promises more comprehensive evaluations of whole policy areas, so called fitness checks, as opposed to individual legal acts (page 4-5).
“Fitness checks” have been launched in 2010 for areas in environment, transport, employment/social policy and industrial policy. This will be extended to other policy areas in 2011 on the basis of these experiences (page 5).
Impact assessments
The Commission underlines the importance of impact assessments and the work done by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), and it refers to the evaluation made by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The Commission rejects an outside body to control impact assessments as an infringement of its prerogatives, but it promises to improve consultation processes.
After guidance on social impacts, the Commission intends to improve the assessment of impacts on fundamental rights.
The Commission admits that impact assessments should quantify costs and benefits, but it refers to the difficulties in quantifying national implementation measures (pages 6-7).
***
The sections on shared responsibilities between EU institutions and the opportunities for national authorities are worth reading. The Commission is going to extend the consultation period for proposals to twelve weeks, in order to give stakeholders and citizens more time to react. A progress report on the smart regulation agenda is promised during the second half of 2012.
Marketplace of ideas
My impression is that the ‘smart regulation’ agenda builds on good experiences, and it envisions sensible improvements.
However, there still seems to be too little quality discussion in public between the EU and national levels and various stakeholders, both business and wider societal interests. The Commission’s promise to improve consultations is a step in the right direction, but the other players need to open up as well and be less reliant on quiet lobbying.
In part they already communicate actively online, but mainly unidirectionally on their own websites. Perhaps the interest groups (stakeholders) should become more engaged in the public marketplace of ideas, participating in online discussions through social media.
It is increasingly hard to find European enterprises, public authorities or interest groups outside the public marketplace of ideas, without an active social media presence. Few of them are untouched by politics and policies at European Union level.
Politics, policies, economics and law at EU level are becoming more important in a globalising world, at least if Europeans still want to weigh in, instead of member states being picked off like clay pigeons.
EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator. There is still room for professional quality blogging on various aspects of EU politics and policies.
As a reader, you can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments
Quantity and quality are different things, but the European Commission offers an approximate answer to the question how many legal acts there are with European Union origin.
This detail is found in the Report from the Commission:
27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)
Quantity of EU regulation
The numbers won’t end discussions about how “intrusive” or expensive EU regulation is, or on the other hand how far away the more than 50 year old ex common market, now officially the internal market, is from the ideal of a seamlessly functioning single market.
However, even the detail about the number of legal acts on the EU statute book has some relevance. This is what the report tells us on page 2:
Quality of EU regulation
The basic argument in favour of EU level regulation is that businesses have to contend with one set of red tape instead of 27, or 30 when we take the European Economic Area (EEA) into account.
There are external aspects as well. Internal market standards for a fairly rich EEA with about 506 million consumers set ‘de facto’ norms for businesses elsewhere. In short, if third country enterprises want to export to the EU, they have to achieve European product standards. In international trade negotiations the common commercial policy potentially gives the European Union clout way beyond what a member state could hope to achieve on its own.
Some of those who are wedded to ‘light touch regulation’ tend to forget that rules and standards are intended to protect people: life, health, safety at work, consumer protection. As an ideology, a race to the bottom is not exempt from dangers for the common good.
This still leaves open the question of the costs versus benefits of regulation. If we care for both businesses and wider societal effects, we have to search for answers in a more pragmatic and evidence-based manner than through pure ideology.
It is fairly easy to demonstrate the gross or even net contributions of member states to the budget of the European Union. It is more difficult to quantify the costs of EU regulation compared to the alternative, national norm-setting, or the savings for the national economies and businesses through joint regulation at continental level. - The alternative is not EU regulation or no regulation (and regulatory burden).
Anyone who proposes ‘freely cooperating, sovereign nation states’ as an alternative should study the common market as long as its progress was ruled by unanimity. Without supra-national decision-making there would be no real common market (even in the imperfect form of today).
The European Union is not totally deaf to criticism. “Better regulation” has long been one of those activities, which are little noticed by the wider public, but extremely important for both enterprises and EU citizens.
Smart regulation updates
“Smart regulation” is now the Commission’s preferred term for the “better regulation” agenda. The European Commission regularly reports on progress in this area.
For a quick overview, you can read the fresh press release from the Commission, available in 22 languages:
Smart regulation: ensuring that European laws benefit people and businesses; 8 October 2010 IP/10/1296
Impact assessments
The press release from the Commission followed on the heels of a report, where the Court of Auditors evaluated the impact assessment system. The Commission’s welcoming words can be found in another press release, also available in 22 languages:
Impact assessments improve the Commission's policy-making. Commission welcomes positive report by the European Court of Auditors; 28 September 2010 IP/10/1187
If you suspect the Commission of favourable spin, you may want to read the ECA’s own press release for comparison:
Press release 28 September 2010 ECA/10/19: Special report: Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
Impact assessments are important challenges for national authorities, as well as for institutions and bodies at European level. If you find impact assessments worth deeper study, you can access the ECA Special report No 3/2010 (28 September 2010):
Impact assessments in the EU institutions: Do they support decision-making? (76 pages)
The ECA press release and the full report seem to be available in English, French and German.
Smart regulation communication
Those who want more on better or smart regulation can head towards the Commission’s well structured Better regulation web pages (although the latest documents have not always been added to the various pages).
Primary sources are better than secondary ones, so we set our course for the latest communication from the Commission.
Since the search among COM documents on Eur-Lex tells us that COM(2010) 543 is not available in English (=not posted), we have to be content with the English, French or German version available through the Key documents page under Better regulation. Here for the English language version of the Communication from the Commission:
Smart Regulation in the European Union; Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final (11 pages)
The Communication on smart regulation offers an updated view of efforts to improve the quality of regulation in and by the European Union. The document references make it a helpful source for those who want to get to grips with regulation policy at EU level in general, or delve into particular aspects.
***
We have not reached a conclusive answer on the right amount of EU regulation, but we are offered the chance to become confused at a higher level.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Grahnlaw welcomes comments relevant to the topic discussed in each blog post. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. It is more difficult and time-consuming to eliminate them ‘ex post’ than to prevent them ‘ex ante’ (even this, a dreary chore). Here is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued facts and opinions appear.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages. We can share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
If you are a reader, check out Bloggingportal.eu. The multilingual blog aggregator helps you become better informed about the European Union and the Council of Europe, and it offers you a fun way to improve your language skills.
Euroblogs can invite comments in different languages; those we are able to read, or the ones we understand the essentials of by using machine translation (bad, but fast and improving; often better into English than into other languages).
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
This detail is found in the Report from the Commission:
27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)
Quantity of EU regulation
The numbers won’t end discussions about how “intrusive” or expensive EU regulation is, or on the other hand how far away the more than 50 year old ex common market, now officially the internal market, is from the ideal of a seamlessly functioning single market.
However, even the detail about the number of legal acts on the EU statute book has some relevance. This is what the report tells us on page 2:
At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.
Quality of EU regulation
The basic argument in favour of EU level regulation is that businesses have to contend with one set of red tape instead of 27, or 30 when we take the European Economic Area (EEA) into account.
There are external aspects as well. Internal market standards for a fairly rich EEA with about 506 million consumers set ‘de facto’ norms for businesses elsewhere. In short, if third country enterprises want to export to the EU, they have to achieve European product standards. In international trade negotiations the common commercial policy potentially gives the European Union clout way beyond what a member state could hope to achieve on its own.
Some of those who are wedded to ‘light touch regulation’ tend to forget that rules and standards are intended to protect people: life, health, safety at work, consumer protection. As an ideology, a race to the bottom is not exempt from dangers for the common good.
This still leaves open the question of the costs versus benefits of regulation. If we care for both businesses and wider societal effects, we have to search for answers in a more pragmatic and evidence-based manner than through pure ideology.
It is fairly easy to demonstrate the gross or even net contributions of member states to the budget of the European Union. It is more difficult to quantify the costs of EU regulation compared to the alternative, national norm-setting, or the savings for the national economies and businesses through joint regulation at continental level. - The alternative is not EU regulation or no regulation (and regulatory burden).
Anyone who proposes ‘freely cooperating, sovereign nation states’ as an alternative should study the common market as long as its progress was ruled by unanimity. Without supra-national decision-making there would be no real common market (even in the imperfect form of today).
The European Union is not totally deaf to criticism. “Better regulation” has long been one of those activities, which are little noticed by the wider public, but extremely important for both enterprises and EU citizens.
Smart regulation updates
“Smart regulation” is now the Commission’s preferred term for the “better regulation” agenda. The European Commission regularly reports on progress in this area.
For a quick overview, you can read the fresh press release from the Commission, available in 22 languages:
Smart regulation: ensuring that European laws benefit people and businesses; 8 October 2010 IP/10/1296
Impact assessments
The press release from the Commission followed on the heels of a report, where the Court of Auditors evaluated the impact assessment system. The Commission’s welcoming words can be found in another press release, also available in 22 languages:
Impact assessments improve the Commission's policy-making. Commission welcomes positive report by the European Court of Auditors; 28 September 2010 IP/10/1187
If you suspect the Commission of favourable spin, you may want to read the ECA’s own press release for comparison:
Press release 28 September 2010 ECA/10/19: Special report: Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
Impact assessments are important challenges for national authorities, as well as for institutions and bodies at European level. If you find impact assessments worth deeper study, you can access the ECA Special report No 3/2010 (28 September 2010):
Impact assessments in the EU institutions: Do they support decision-making? (76 pages)
The ECA press release and the full report seem to be available in English, French and German.
Smart regulation communication
Those who want more on better or smart regulation can head towards the Commission’s well structured Better regulation web pages (although the latest documents have not always been added to the various pages).
Primary sources are better than secondary ones, so we set our course for the latest communication from the Commission.
Since the search among COM documents on Eur-Lex tells us that COM(2010) 543 is not available in English (=not posted), we have to be content with the English, French or German version available through the Key documents page under Better regulation. Here for the English language version of the Communication from the Commission:
Smart Regulation in the European Union; Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final (11 pages)
The Communication on smart regulation offers an updated view of efforts to improve the quality of regulation in and by the European Union. The document references make it a helpful source for those who want to get to grips with regulation policy at EU level in general, or delve into particular aspects.
***
We have not reached a conclusive answer on the right amount of EU regulation, but we are offered the chance to become confused at a higher level.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Grahnlaw welcomes comments relevant to the topic discussed in each blog post. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. It is more difficult and time-consuming to eliminate them ‘ex post’ than to prevent them ‘ex ante’ (even this, a dreary chore). Here is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued facts and opinions appear.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages. We can share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
If you are a reader, check out Bloggingportal.eu. The multilingual blog aggregator helps you become better informed about the European Union and the Council of Europe, and it offers you a fun way to improve your language skills.
Euroblogs can invite comments in different languages; those we are able to read, or the ones we understand the essentials of by using machine translation (bad, but fast and improving; often better into English than into other languages).
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Monday, 29 June 2009
European Union: Better regulation
On its road to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, the European Union has as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities, to promote throughout the European Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States (Article 1 TEC).
Social market economy
Among the modernised aims of the European Union, in the Lisbon Treaty Article 3(3) TEU, we find “a highly competitive social market economy”:
“3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”
***
Legislation and regulation
Legislation is an important instrument for the European Union promotes its aims, and the stream of Directives, Regulations and Decisions is impressive.
In principle, the objectives of the legislative acts are worthy, such as improved environmental standards, consumer protection, human safety, health and wellbeing.
While the legislation is often addressed to the member states, much of it targets businesses. Regulation leads to compliance costs for enterprises, and the combined cost of business regulation is too great to ignore at national and European level.
Much can be said for replacing different national rules by common norms for 27 EU member states (or 30 countries of the European Economic Area, EEA), but the economy in the internal market is not meant to be only “social”, but also “highly competitive”.
Given the importance of the European Union, both benefits and costs of business regulation need to be scrutinised carefully, because European level legislation affects about 500 million people.
***
Better regulation
The European Commission pursues a Better Regulation strategy, with the following courses of action:
Promoting the design and application of better regulation tools at the EU level, notably simplification, reduction of administrative burdens and impact assessment.
Working more closely with Member States to ensure that better regulation principles are applied consistently throughout the EU by all regulators.
Reinforcing the constructive dialogue between stakeholders and all regulators at the EU and national levels
The Commission’s own assessment of its agenda is the Communication Third strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union (Brussels, 28.1.2009, COM(2009) 15 final).
The Communication presents efforts to cut “red tape” by scrapping obsolete legislation and codifying existing legal acts. The implications of proposed new laws are scrutinised through impact assessments, with new Impact assessment guidelines (since 15 January 2009; SEC(2009) 92).
***
Open Europe
Open Europe’s publication Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation was published in February 2009, which means that some of the questions it raises may have been addressed in the Communication (and accompanying documents) as well as the new Impact assessment guidelines.
Still, the publication raises valid points about regulatory costs at both national (UK) and European level. (It does not look at the benefits.)
Despite the efforts, the costs of regulation have continued to rise.
Administrative costs have been at the centre of attention, with the EU scrapping obsolete legislation and simplifying existing laws. The wider costs of compliance with regulation, fees and licenses as well as knock-on effects have been less well scrutinised.
Open Europe correctly underlines the importance of European level regulation, meaning that a purely domestic (UK) agenda is too limited in scope.
***
New Commission
The newly elected European Parliament is starting its work and the legislative engine, the new Commission, will begin to set its priorities from the end of this year (1 November 2009).
Open Europe’s remarks and suggestions need to be taken seriously by the EU institutions, comparing them to the latest Communication and Impact assessment guidelines.
Although Open Europe dealt with national issues from a British perspective, all national governments could profit from many of the suggestions, both with regard to their contributions to Council work and to their domestic agendas on sensible regulation.
A level playing-field within the EU (EEA) is desirable, but far from enough. A highly competitive social market economy needs to be competitive in a global context as well.
Ralf Grahn
Social market economy
Among the modernised aims of the European Union, in the Lisbon Treaty Article 3(3) TEU, we find “a highly competitive social market economy”:
“3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”
***
Legislation and regulation
Legislation is an important instrument for the European Union promotes its aims, and the stream of Directives, Regulations and Decisions is impressive.
In principle, the objectives of the legislative acts are worthy, such as improved environmental standards, consumer protection, human safety, health and wellbeing.
While the legislation is often addressed to the member states, much of it targets businesses. Regulation leads to compliance costs for enterprises, and the combined cost of business regulation is too great to ignore at national and European level.
Much can be said for replacing different national rules by common norms for 27 EU member states (or 30 countries of the European Economic Area, EEA), but the economy in the internal market is not meant to be only “social”, but also “highly competitive”.
Given the importance of the European Union, both benefits and costs of business regulation need to be scrutinised carefully, because European level legislation affects about 500 million people.
***
Better regulation
The European Commission pursues a Better Regulation strategy, with the following courses of action:
Promoting the design and application of better regulation tools at the EU level, notably simplification, reduction of administrative burdens and impact assessment.
Working more closely with Member States to ensure that better regulation principles are applied consistently throughout the EU by all regulators.
Reinforcing the constructive dialogue between stakeholders and all regulators at the EU and national levels
The Commission’s own assessment of its agenda is the Communication Third strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union (Brussels, 28.1.2009, COM(2009) 15 final).
The Communication presents efforts to cut “red tape” by scrapping obsolete legislation and codifying existing legal acts. The implications of proposed new laws are scrutinised through impact assessments, with new Impact assessment guidelines (since 15 January 2009; SEC(2009) 92).
***
Open Europe
Open Europe’s publication Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation was published in February 2009, which means that some of the questions it raises may have been addressed in the Communication (and accompanying documents) as well as the new Impact assessment guidelines.
Still, the publication raises valid points about regulatory costs at both national (UK) and European level. (It does not look at the benefits.)
Despite the efforts, the costs of regulation have continued to rise.
Administrative costs have been at the centre of attention, with the EU scrapping obsolete legislation and simplifying existing laws. The wider costs of compliance with regulation, fees and licenses as well as knock-on effects have been less well scrutinised.
Open Europe correctly underlines the importance of European level regulation, meaning that a purely domestic (UK) agenda is too limited in scope.
***
New Commission
The newly elected European Parliament is starting its work and the legislative engine, the new Commission, will begin to set its priorities from the end of this year (1 November 2009).
Open Europe’s remarks and suggestions need to be taken seriously by the EU institutions, comparing them to the latest Communication and Impact assessment guidelines.
Although Open Europe dealt with national issues from a British perspective, all national governments could profit from many of the suggestions, both with regard to their contributions to Council work and to their domestic agendas on sensible regulation.
A level playing-field within the EU (EEA) is desirable, but far from enough. A highly competitive social market economy needs to be competitive in a global context as well.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
