Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea 2017 - Key Findings

1,962 views

Published on

OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key Findings. Presentation at the launch of the report by Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini. www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy-in-korea-9789264274600-en.htm

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea 2017 - Key Findings

  1. 1. OECD REGULATORY POLICY REVIEW OF KOREA – KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini Regulatory Policy Division, Directorate for Public Governance, OECD NRC-OECD Joint Seminar on Regulatory Reform in Korea Seoul, 23 May 2017
  2. 2. Agenda 1. State of play – Key findings 2. Going forward - Key recommendations 3. Connecting the dots - Conclusions
  3. 3. Reviewing Korea’s regulatory system over time 2000 2007 2017
  4. 4. 1. State of play
  5. 5. Building blocks of a mature regulatory system in place • Ministerial meeting on regulatory reform • Regulatory Reform Committee • RIA and Cost-in Cost-Out system • Regulatory Reform Office within the PMO • Network of units responsible for regulatory reform across central administration and local government • Sinmungo/petition system • SME Ombudsman
  6. 6. Korea performing above average on stakeholder engagement for primary laws… Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%). Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  7. 7. …and on stakeholder engagement for subordinate regulations Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  8. 8. Korea performing above average on RIA for developing primary laws… Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%). Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  9. 9. …and on RIA for developing subordinate regulations Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  10. 10. Korea performing above average on ex post evaluation for primary laws… Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  11. 11. …and on ex post evaluation for subordinate regulations Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en
  12. 12. Opportunities to take the regulatory system to the “next level” by making it more… • Strategic  vision on the direction of regulatory policy • Targeted  focus on significant regulations and policies • Proactive  more responsibilities and accountability to central administrative agencies/ministries • Inclusive  wider range of stakeholders involved in the regulatory processes and institutions
  13. 13. 2. Going forward
  14. 14. Leadership and oversight • Keep momentum for reform through electoral/political cycle… • Re-focus the role of RRC on significant regulation and secure wider representation • Focus the role and functions of RRO/PMO on steering and significant regulation • Regular exchanges among regulators on particular sectors, topics, or applications to facilitate learning, continous improvement and capacity building • Greater ease-of-use and harmonisation of the various databases and registry systems
  15. 15. Practices – The UK Regulatory Policy Committee • Validating performance against government target • Ensuring the impacts on small business are properly considered • RPC publishes all opinions – including red ones • RPC writes to Ministers responsible for a ‘not fit for purpose’ opinion • Publication of departmental league tables on quality of impact assessments • Published reports • Use of RPC work amongst parliamentarians
  16. 16. Regulatory quality management & assessment • Incentives, oversight and accountability mechanism to deal with low-burden regulation at the ministry level • Submit RIAS and CICO to the National Assembly • Create a permanent regulatory quality check system within the National Assembly • Systematically measure improvements of regulatory quality • Expand CICO to include also public safety and social costs
  17. 17. Practices – Law Evaluation Dept of Chile’s Chamber of Deputies • Methodology – technical analysis – citizens’ perception • Tools – online questionnaires – online chats – focus groups – Workshops • Reporting – Published reports – Use of findings for discussion on law amendments
  18. 18. Practices – Measuring regulatory costs in Germany • Checklist for identifying direct & indirect costs – Line ministries take responsibility – Guide: criteria, examples, • Data – Prices  Federal Statistical Office – Consultations with businesses early in the process • Quantitative & qualitative – Qualitative estimates when lacking hard data
  19. 19. Stakeholder engagement and transparency • Assess current engagement methods and focus on the initiatives that work for citizens and businesses (new entrants and incumbents) • Take into consideration the evolution of stakeholder engagement from “listening” towards proactive dialogue • Wider use of modern engagement methods backed by capacity support (e.g. use of social media and use of behavioural insights when possible) • Early engagement already in the design of regulation with wider group of stakeholders • Systematic early consultation on bills originating in the National Assembly
  20. 20. Practices – Encouraging the use of social media across government • France – meetings, exchanges and seminars run by the Service d'information du Gouvernement (SIG) within the Prime Minister’s Office • Netherlands – Network of social media practitioners – Wiki (“Civil Servant 2.0”) to gather and exchange information on good practices • United States – Social Media Community of Practice – Over 200 federal government social media managers
  21. 21. Practices – Engaging stakeholders through behavioural insights in Colombia • Focus – Reform of the consumer protection regime for the communications market (telecom services)  consumers’ welfare • Methodology/key steps – Surveys and interviews of consumers across 17 regions – Consumer psychology exercises exploring the decision making process of users – Analysis of results with OECD experts on regulatory policy, behavioural economics, digital government and data analytics – Revised draft regulation consulted with users and operators on- line and through working groups • Results – Simplified contracts – Salient consumption information – Salient price information
  22. 22. Compliance, inspections & enforcement • Further develop a risk-based approach to enforcement and inspections • Develop a shared information system on probability and impact of risks (data on compliance and inspection activities) • Co-ordinate across local governments (regional-regional and regional-sub- regional)
  23. 23. Practices – Risk forecasting for food inspection in Chicago • Chicago’s Department of Public Health (CDPH) – 15 000 food establishments – about 36 inspectors • Algorithm to prioritise inspections – Partnership – CDPH + Public Health + Innovation + Private Insurance + Civic Consulting Alliance – Use of Chicago’s open data portal (over 600 datasets) – Results from previous sanitary inspections, weather data, sanitation complaints etc. • Results – Critical violations discovered 7 days earlier
  24. 24. Small and medium-sized enterprises • Streamline SME RIAs into general RIA system • Allow extra time for compliance • Report regularly on impact of regulatory policies on SMEs to the RRC (cumulative assessment of the effect of the regulatory policies on the performance of SMEs) • Reduce compliance costs and facilitate compliance
  25. 25. Practices – Facilitating compliance through the UK Primary Authority scheme • What it is – Legally recognised partnership – Businesses and a single local authority/fire & rescue authority – Open to all businesses but particularly useful for small businesses – limited capacity and resources to address regulatory challenges • What it does – Guidance, advice, and feedback to businesses – Single authority primarily responsible for inspection and compliance for businesses operating across jurisdictions – Interactive online platform -- updates on the scheme and agreed inspection plans
  26. 26. 3. Connecting the dots
  27. 27. • Government – Centre of Government – Sector ministries/central administrative agencies – National Assembly – Regional and local • Non-government – Business - SMEs – Citizens – Research institutions – Others Actors
  28. 28. • Policy – Evidence-based – Data – Methodology • Institutions – Capability – Quality standards – Governance (who does what) Tools
  29. 29. • Top down – Oversight – Performance reports – Accountability • Bottom up – Opportunity: • Training • Recognition and responsibility – Evidence and influence Incentives
  30. 30. • Enforcement and inspection – Compliance promotion – Risk-based – Evidence for ex-post reviews • Behavioural insights – Better choices – Greater compliance – Better design of regulation Delivery
  31. 31. Regulatory policy is a means to an end… Who cares about RIA?!...will I sell more walnut cookies?!
  32. 32. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264274600-en Faisal.naru@oecd.org Filippo.cavassini@oecd.org 감사합니다 Thank you!

×