The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis in Public Administration: Assessments with a Governance Approach
Author :
Abstract
Keywords
Abstract
One of the most important conditions for increasing the efficiency of public administration, realizing the principles of governance and most importantly creating a modern state that can compete on a global scale depends on the inclusive and high quality of the legislation. The way the legislation is created in the country is the most important factor affecting this quality. In addition to the formation of legislation and public policies by the legislature in the country, the inclusion of technical and expert opinions in making decisions in this process ensures that the decisions taken are better. Regulatory impact analysis is a policy decision support system that is very effective and helps to achieve good results in the process of creating public policies. Regulatory impact analysis, in its most general terms, is the analysis of the possible effects of the public policies that are aimed to be formed in relation to a certain subject, by determining in advance. Within the scope of this analysis, it is suggested that the most beneficial and least costly policy should be applied by determining the costs and benefits of various policies, which are generally created in relation to a subject, separately. Therefore, before the implementation of a certain public policy, it should be analyzed in terms of its possible future effects. It collects comprehensive and systematic information about the proposed policies and acts as an advisor to the decision makers.
The practice of regulatory impact analysis can be traced back to the 1990s in OECD countries. However, it is seen that this analysis has not yet received sufficient value and has not found an application area in Turkey. On the other hand, regulatory impact analyzes improve policy-making processes, enabling both the spread of governance and the development of democratic values. Turkey has highlighted the implementation of regulatory impact analysis with a series of legislative harmonization programs within the scope of the EU harmonization process. However, it has been very limited in practice. Within the scope of this study, it is emphasized what regulatory impact analysis is, how its processes and methods work, and why it is necessary to apply this method. Therefore, regulatory impact analysis What?, How?, Why? evaluated on the basis of questions. It is also evaluated how this analysis has effects on public administration and what kind of relations it has with the governance approach. As a matter of fact, it is seen that the regulatory impact analysis is very useful in the process of creating public policies and contributes to the effective-efficient use of the country's resources. Moreover, in the background of this analysis, the emphasis on the phenomenon of governance in relation to state administration has emerged. It is recommended that this analysis be made in all kinds of policies that need to be put forward in the implementation of governance and the implementation of good governance principles.
Keywords
- 1. Arrow, K. J., Cropper, M. L., Eads, G. C., Hahn, R. W., Lave, L. B., Noll, R. G., . . . Smith, V. K. (1996). "Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?". Science, 272 (5259), 221222.
- 2. Ballantine, B., Devonald, B. (2006). "Modern regulatory impact analysis: The experience of the European Union". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 44 (1), 57-68.
- 3. Baskıcı, G. F. (2007). Uluslararası uygulamalar ışığında düzenleyici etki analizi ve Türk mali yönetimi ve kontrol sistemi açısından uygulanabilirliği. Ankara: Maliye Bakanlığı Bütçe ve Mali Kontrol Genel Müdürlüğü.
- 4. Bayramoğlu, S. (2004). Kamu Yönetimi Reformu ve Düzenleyici Etki Analizi (Tasarı Madde 5-c Hükmü). Erişim Tarihi 19.06.2022, http://www.kamuyonetimi.org/ktml2/files/uploads/pdf/deason.pdf
- 5. Bıçkıcı, M. (2003). "Düzenleyici Etki Analizinin Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği". Türk İdare Dergisi, 441 (4), 285- 306.
- 6. Canpolat, Ö. (2010). Hukuki düzenleme tekniği, düzenleyici etki analizi (DEA) ve yasa yapım süreci. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi.
- 7. CBK. (2022). Düzenleyici etki analizinin uygulanmasına ilişkin usul ve esaslar. Ankara: Cuhurbaşkanlığı Kararları.
- 8. Çelik, Ş. G. (2005). "Düzenleyici Etki Analizi". Bütçe Dünyası Dergisi, 2 (21), 32-38.
- 9. Department of the Taoiseach. (2005). RIA Guidelines, How to Conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Erişim Tarihi 15.09.2022, https://assets.gov.ie/43562/b2c5a78227834a96ad001b381456ab18.pdf
- 10. Ekici, B. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi: kanun, kanun hükmünde kararname, tüzük, yönetmelik ve diğer düzenlemelerde uygulanması. Ankara: Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı.
- 11. Ekici, B., Çelik, M. (2007). "Düzenleyici Etki Analizi: Analiz Süreci ve Uygulama". Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40 (1), 135-158.
- 12. European Commission. (2021). Guidelines on impact assessment. Erişim Tarihi 15.08.2022, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/better-regulation-guidelines-impact-assessment.pdf
- 13. European Policy Center. (2001). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Improving the Quality of EU SS Activity. Brussels: European Policy Centre.
- 14. Jacobs, S. (2006). Current trends in regulatory impact analysis: the challenges of mainstreaming RIA into policy- making. Washington: Jacobs and Associates Inc.
- 15. Karaosmanoğlu, H. S. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi ve Türkiye uygulaması. (Uzmanlık Tezi). Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı İktisadi Sektörler ve Koordinasyon Genel Müdürlüğü
- 16. Karataş, A. (2021). "Evaluation of the relationship of democracy and governance: An empirical analysis". Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 21 (4), 623-651.
- 17. Kaymak, H. (2004). "Düzenleyici Etki Analizi". Maliye Dergisi, 8 (3), 107-131.
- 18. Kirkpatrick, C. H., Parker, D. (2003). Regulatory Impact Assessment: Its Potential Use in Developing Countries. Manchester: Centre on Regulation and Competition.
- 19. Kızılcık, R. (2006). "Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de Mevzuat İyileştirme Çabaları". Yasama Dergisi, 1 (1), 74-95.
- 20. Kopp, R. J., Krupnick, A. J., Toman, M. (1997). Cost-benefit analysis and regulatory reform: an assessment of the science and the art. Washington: AgEcon Search.
- 21. Mandelkern Report. (2001). Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation Final Report. Erişim, 10.09.2022, https://www.smartreg.pe/reportes/Mandelkern%20Report%20on%20Better%20Regulation%202001.pdf
- 22. Morrall, J. F. I. (2001). Regulatory Impact Analysis: efficiency, accountability and transparency. Singapore: OECD.
- 23. National Audit Office. (2001). Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: United Kingdom National Audit Office.
- 24. OECD. (1995). Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation. Paris: OECD.
- 25. OECD. (1997a). The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform Synthesis. Paris: OECD.
- 26. OECD. (1997b). The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Sectoral Studies. Paris: OECD.
- 27. OECD. (1997c). Regulatory impact analysis: Best practices in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
- 28. OECD. (1997d). Regulatory Management and Reform. Paris: OECD.
- 29. Prime minister's office. (2003). Kamu Yönetimi Temel Kanun Tasarısı. Erişim Tarihi 07.06.2022, http://www.antimai.org/ys/kymadgerek.htm
- 30. Radaelli, C. M. (2004). "The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis–Best practice or lesson‐drawing?". European Journal of Political Research, 43 (5), 723-747.
- 31. Rodrigo, D. (2005). Regulatory Impact Analysis in OECD Countries Challenges for Developing Countries South Asian- Third High Level Investment Roundtable. Dhaka: OECD.
- 32. Şahinkaya, Y., Aksel, İ. (2008). "Mevzuat Hazırlamada Düzenleyici Etki Analizi ve Türkiye Uygulaması". Adalet Dergisi, 32 (1), 1-24.
- 33. Scharrenborg, R. (2006). Impact assessment in the European Commissıion. İstanbul: European Commission.
- 34. TEPAV. (2006). Düzenleyici Etki Analizi Rehberi. Ankara: TEPAV Yayınları.
- 35. Vibert, F. (2006). "The limits of regulatory reform in the EU". Economic Affairs, 26 (2), 17-21.
