Analyzing scientific knowledge in documents: The case of regulatory impact assessment

• Authors: Katarína Staroňová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is seen as a tool for increasing evidence-based policy making and as such it is being integrated into decision-making procedures on a wide range of issues. Based on systematic consultation, clear criteria for policy choice, and economic analysis of how costs and benefits impact on a wide range of affected parties, this tool operates by using scientific knowledge and technical analysis rather than political considerations. Scientific knowledge can be used to achieve instrumental learning (Radaelli, 2009, OECD), policy change (Sabatier, 1999), to impact on decision making (Caplan, 1979; C.H.Weiss, 1999) but also to seek legitimacy from the policy environment (Edelman, 1985; Schrefler, 2010). This article suggests an analytical framework for analysing RIA documents with insight from knowledge utilization theories. We argue that in order to better understand the RIA itself, we need to look at institutional factors as well. The combination of institutional context variables and variables for RIA document content analysis which make up worldviews in this framework provide the basis for the document analysis and exploration of RIA in its context.

Keywords

EN

evidence-based policy making; regulatory impact assessment; institutionalization; document analysis; scientific knowledge

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 299-306

Dates

published

2014-07-01

online

2014-06-26

Contributors

author

Katarína Staroňová

• Comenius University

References

• [1] Bond, A., & Pope, J. (2012). The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.669140[Crossref]
• [2] Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308[Crossref]
• [3] Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Putting texts in their place. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 221–230). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• [4] Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., JaegeR, J., & Mitchell, R.B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100[Crossref]
• [5] De Francesco, F. (2012). Diffusion of regulatory impact analysis among OECD and EU Member States. Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1277–1305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434297[Crossref][WoS]
• [6] Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• [7] EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2002). Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue: proposal for general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by commission, communication from the commission. July, Brussels: European Commission.
• [8] EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2012). EU Regulatory Fitness. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2012) 746 final. Strasbourg: European Commission.
• [9] EUROPEAN COMMISISON (2010). Smart Regulation in the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, COM(2010) 543 final. Brussels: European Commission.
• [10] Freeman, R., & Maybin, J. (2011). Documents, practices and policy. Evidence & Policy 7(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426411X579207[Crossref]
• [11] Hahn, R. W., & Litan, R. E. (1997). Improving regulatory accountability. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• [12] Hahn, R. W., Burnett, J. K., Chan, Y. I., Mader, E. A., & Moyle, P. R. (2000). Assessing the quality of regulatory impact analyses. Working Paper 00-1, AEI - Brooking Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, January.
• [13] Mandelkern Group Report (2001). Final Report. Brussels, 13 November. Available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/docs/europe/pdf/mandfinrep.pdf
• [14] Nillson, M. et al. (2008). The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sciences, 41, 335–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9071-1[WoS][Crossref]
• [15] Radaelli, C. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: how political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 924–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161621[Crossref]
• [16] Radaelli, C. (2009). Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(8), 1145–1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760903332647[Crossref][WoS]
• [17] Radaelli, C. (2010). Rationality, power, management and symbols. Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(2), 164–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00245.x[Crossref][WoS]
• [18] Radaelli, C., & De Francesco, F., (2007), Regulatory quality in Europe. Concepts, measures and policy processes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• [19] Schreffler, L. (2010). The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 23(2), 309–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01481.x[Crossref][WoS]
• [20] Smith, D.E. (1990). Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London: Routledge.
• [21] Staroňová, K. (2010). Regulatory impact assessment: Formal institutionalization and practice. Journal of Public Policy, 30(1), 117–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X09990201[Crossref][WoS]
• [22] Staroňová, K. (2014, accepted). Models of RIA institutionalization in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparative study of nine countries. Revue Francaise D’Administration Publique.
• [23] Weiss, C. H. (1979).The many meanings of knowledge utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(September/October), 426–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3109916[Crossref]
• [24] Wiener, J.B., & Alemanno, A. (2011). Comparing regulatory oversight bodies across the Atlantic: The office of information and regulatory affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU. In S. Rose-Ackerman, & P. Lindseth (Eds.), Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s13374-014-0228-7