Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?

Simonelli, Felice; Iacob, Nadina

doi:10.1017/err.2021.40

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some observers back the European Commission’s view (RegWatchEurope, 2019) and underscore the need for a shared commitment to better law-making, less duplication of efforts, and more transparency to citizens (Radaelli, 2018). Others note that an obligation to carry out impact assessments could further draw out the timeline to negotiate a legislative proposal (Simonelli and Iacob, 2021).…”

Section: Inter-institutional Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, the Commission’s impact assessment could also be ‘updated’ to reflect the assessment of Parliament’s substantial amendment. However, such linkages would imply a longer process (Simonelli and Iacob, 2021) as well as the sharing of data and evidence between the institutions, which is currently not the case.…”

Section: Inter-institutional Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How evaluation is understood and practised in the European Parliament

Fernandes,

Eisele,

Anglmayer

2024

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 10 years, the European Parliament has stepped up its use of evaluation to inform its law-making activities. This work has been guided in large part by the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making signed in 2016 by the European Parliament, the European Commission (which is the EU executive organ) and the Council of the European Union (representing the EU Member States). This article describes how evaluation is carried out in practice in the European Parliament and how it is shaped by the institutional setting. It argues that evaluation activities are inextricably linked with the law-making process, and that timing is a critical factor in evaluation uptake. Outstanding inter-institutional issues are identified and ways in which future trends and shocks can be integrated into European Parliament evaluation are described. There remain opportunities to better anticipate demands for evaluation, which could increase the time and resources available for such analysis, and for more transparency across the European Union institutions in the underlying data and evidence used to support evaluation findings.

show abstract

Section: Inter-institutional Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inter-institutional Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How evaluation is understood and practised in the European Parliament

Fernandes,

Eisele,

Anglmayer

2024

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, regulation should reflect the latest scientific evidence and be evidence-based. An illustration of this approach is the European Union's 'Better Regulation' agenda, a public policy strategy aiming to ensure that European regulation is based on scientific evidence, as well as the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in the decisionmaking process (Commission, 2023b;Simonelli and Iacob, 2021). Citizens, businesses and any other stakeholders can submit their contributions to the calls for evidence, feedback and public consultations.…”

Section: Technology Regulation and The Role Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models

Goanta,

Aletras,

Chalkidis

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific innovation in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and more broadly in artificial intelligence (AI) is at its fastest pace to date. As large language models (LLMs) unleash a new era of automation, important debates emerge regarding the benefits and risks of their development, deployment and use. Currently, these debates have been dominated by often polarized narratives mainly led by the AI Safety and AI Ethics movements. This polarization, often amplified by social media, is swaying political agendas on AI regulation and governance and posing issues of regulatory capture. Capture occurs when the regulator advances the interests of the industry it is supposed to regulate, or of special interest groups rather than pursuing the general public interest. Meanwhile in NLP research, attention has been increasingly paid to the discussion of regulating risks and harms. This often happens without systematic methodologies or sufficient rooting in the disciplines that inspire an extended scope of NLP research, jeopardizing the scientific integrity of these endeavors. Regulation studies are a rich source of knowledge on how to systematically deal with risk and uncertainty, as well as with scientific evidence, to evaluate and compare regulatory options. This resource has largely remained untapped so far. In this paper, we argue how NLP research on these topics can benefit from proximity to regulatory studies and adjacent fields. We do so by discussing basic tenets of regulation, and risk and uncertainty, and by highlighting the shortcomings of current NLP discussions dealing with risk assessment. Finally, we advocate for the development of a new multidisciplinary research space on regulation and NLP (RegNLP), focused on connecting scientific knowledge to regulatory processes based on systematic methodologies. 5476, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

show abstract

“…Simonelli and Iacob noted that the main issue regarding the inclusion of SF into the EU's revised Better Regulation agenda was about the how rather than the what. 23 In fact, with the Communication on Better Regulation, the Commission clearly stated that the foresight dimension should be salient during the whole policy cycle. Major trends and megatrends should thus be considered in the analysis of impact assessments, the consultation phase, fitness checks and evaluations.…”

Section: The European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Foresight and Policy Evaluation: Insights for an Integrated Approach

De Vito,

Taffoni

2023

Eur. j. risk regul.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grand challenges are shaping twenty-first-century politics. Threats connected to health, climate, demographics and welfare are increasingly intruding on the lives of citizens. Still, governments are often found off-guard, and policymakers need strategies grounded in longer-term perspectives. Strategic foresight (SF) helps us to design and shape policies to prepare to withstand shocks, anticipating and adapting to changes. However, as governments work towards embedding SF into their policymaking processes, the empirical evidence suggests that applications are still piecemeal and predominantly limited to the agenda-settings and policy formulation stages. In this article, we argue that to drive anticipatory governance, foresight needs to be applied at all stages of the policy cycle, including in evaluating policies to draw lessons for future interventions. We maintain that considering SF systemically throughout the policymaking cycle, from agenda setting to evaluation, strengthens anticipatory governance.

show abstract

Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

How evaluation is understood and practised in the European Parliament

How evaluation is understood and practised in the European Parliament

Regulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models

Strategic Foresight and Policy Evaluation: Insights for an Integrated Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About