Presentation by Stephan Naundorf, Advisor to the Minister of State Helge Braun and Representative of the Better Regulation Unit, Federal Chancellery, Germany, at the 7th Expert Meeting on Measuring Regulatory Performance: Embedding Regulatory Policy in Law and Practice, Breakout session 3, Reykjavik, 18-19 June 2015. Further information is available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-performance.htm

1. Embedding Regulatory
Policy in Law and Practice
Closing the regulatory cycle: ex post evaluation
©GettyImages

2. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
2000: new joint rules of procedure
§ 44 Regulatory Impacts
„(7) In the explanatory
memorandum for the
bill, the lead Federal
Ministry must state
whether and, if so, after
what period of time, a
review is to be held to
verify whether the in-
tended effects have been
achieved, whether the
costs incurred are reaso-
nably proportionnate to
the results, and what side-
effects have arisen.“
© Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 2

3. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 3
Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
2010: evaluation of the evaluation clause
Central findings of the
Federal Performance
Commissioner:
• only a few drafts
comply with § 44 (7)
• no positive trend
• about 2 % of drafts
call for evaluation
• unclear provision
Source: Report of the Federal
Performance Commissioner 2010:
„Opinion on steps taken to enhance
regulation and improve legislation in place“
number of legal drafts issued by the Federal Government
number thereof with information regarding evaluation

4. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
2012: cabinet calls for systematic evaluation
Three to five years after
essential new rules come
into effect, the lead
ministry starts to evaluate
the actual impact of the
law with reference to
the targets specified in
the proposal; it reports to
the Federal Coordinator
and to the Regulatory
Control Council
Source:
Cabinet decision as of 28 March 2012
© Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 4

5. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
Implementation of the 2012 procedure
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 5
LeadMinistryAdvisoryBoardFed.Stat.OfficeChancellery
Evaluation
of data on
compliance
costs given
in the prop.
Decision of the
lead ministry on
method and point
of time for
evaluation
Decision of the
ministry whether
conditions of the
procedure are met
Evaluation
Report on the evaluation
with reference to the
targets specifiedinthe
proposal
Report
for infor-
mation
Only on demand:
statistical office
could support
evaluation
+ another
1 - 3
years
+ 2
years
Report
for infor-
mation
Regula-
tion come
into
effect

6. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 6
Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
Statistics on the 2012 procedures
Only a few proposals
cause more than 1 Mio
Euro p.a. compliance costs
for the business sector.
Ministries evaluate nearly
all projects beyond the
threshhold.
Parliament might ask for
additional evaluation
reports in its own right.
Source: Federal Statistical Office, non-public database, as of June 2015; please note:
legislativeprojectsmayrefertosecondarylegislation;severallegislativeprojectsmayalsobe
combined in one legislative proposal; therefore numbers vary from parliament‘s database
337
345
332
96
40
26
40
14
14
32
13
2012 2013 2014 2015
LEGISLATIVE PROJECTS:
TO BE EVALUATED
number of legislative
projects
thereof: number beyond
threshhold for
compliance costs (> 1
Mio. Euro p.a.)
thereof: number of
intended evaluations

7. Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
The parliament‘s point of view
The Bundestag receives
reports from the Federal
Government according
to the followingfrequency:
one-time only 68
annually 35
bi-annually 30
every 4 years 56
„frequently“ 30
Most of these reports
reflect on legal provisions
©Presse-undInformationsamtderBundesregierung
Quelle: Berichtspflichten 2013/14, BT PD1
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 7

8. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 8
Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
„evalu*“ in parliamentary documents
A growing number of
proposals in the
Parliament‘s database
contain the phrase
„evalu*“.
The increase in ratio is
even higher than the
increase of numbers.
Increase can not be ex-
plained by the govern-
ment‘s decision only.
See: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21.web/searchDocuments/drs_search.do
222
187
210
217
225
192
157
81
47
28
32
47
62
46
67
49
21%
15%
15%
22%
28%
24%
43%
60%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
LEGAL PROPOSALS IN
PARLIAMENT’S DATABASE
number of proposals in the Parliament's public database
thereof: documents containing phrase "evalu*"

9. 18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 9
Source: OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, 2014, p. 34
Evaluation in Regulatory Practice
Implementation is not an end in itself
Have the
good
practices
been
implemented
?
 E.g.
percentage of
RIAs that
comply with
formal
requirements
 e.g. quality
of post-
implementatio
n reviews
Are
requirements
for good
regulatory
practices in
place?
 E.g.
requirements
for objective-
setting,
consultation,
evidence-
based
analysis,
simplification,
risk
assessments
(e.g.
indicators of
regulatory
management
type), aligning
regulatory
changes
internationally
What
resources are
committed?
 E.g. budget,
staffing,
expertise
Have good
practices helped to
get quality
regulation?
 E.g. % of those
involved in the
regulatory process
that think RIA has
improved the quality
of regulation as
opposed to being a
tick-the box-exercise;
comparison of
costs/benefits of
initial regulatory
proposal to those of
actual regulation that
was passed
• Regulatory system • Regulatory impacts
• Other factors that influence outcome
Feedback loop
Input Process Output
Intermediate
outcome
Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in general been
achieved?
 Economic: Net benefits (possibly in comparison with counterfactual
and alternatives)
 Efficient and streamlined: Compliance costs and burdens (possibly
integrated into net benefits; Reduced enforcement costs)
 Perception of regulatory quality in general
 Improved compliance rate
 Transparent and easy to access
Regulatory quality
Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in a specific
sector been achieved?
 Effectiveness – market failure/problem/risk was solved or mitigated
 Protection and benefits of the public, responsive and accountable
Facts-based and perception based sector-specific indicators:
 ENVIRONMENT
e.g. SOxandNOxemissions,concentrationofairpollutantsinurbanareas
 SAFETY
 HEALTH
Regulatory outcomes
Set strategic
objectives
for
regulatory
policy in
general
Set strategic
objectives
for
regulatory
policy in
specific
sectors (e.g.
Health,
Environment
, Education)
Design Implementation Strategic outcome
I II III IV V
easy hard

10. Alternative means for evaluating outcomes
e.g. www.amtlich-einfach.de
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 10

11. Conclusions
Available information for tracking progress
A range of sources is available for facts and figures.
Not all might be in the same way meaningful and
self-explanatory.
Benefitsofcollectingandusingstatisticalinformation
• Oversight is based on appropriate data.
• Data are not an end in itself: impulses count.
• Data have the potential to change politics.
Challenges to be adressed
• Evaluation is „extra-work“: effective incentives?
• Constant flow of reports: attention for evaluation?
• systematic, feasible evalution: better outcomes!
©istock©Bundesregierung
18. June 2015BK 133 | Embedding RegPol: ex post-evaluation | | slide 11

12. Contact
Federal Chancellery
Better Regulation Unit
Willy-Brandt-Str. 1
10557 Berlin
GERMANY
Stephan Naundorf
buerokratieabbau@bk.bund.de
www.bundesregierung.de/buerokratieabbau
www.amtlich-einfach.de
Tel. +49 30 18 400 1360
Fax +49 30 18 400 1380