The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience

Shapiro, Stuart; Morrall, J

doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01131.x

Cited by 34 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third group of studies is concerned with judicial review and the role of courts in regulatory policy (Galera 2010). Finally, there is a body of work on the role of economics in the preparation of legislation -a form of ex ante control of rule-making that covers different usages of cost-benefit analysis and regulatory impact assessment (De Francesco et al 2012;Radaelli 2010;Shapiro and Morrall 2012). This literature has produced a fine-grained knowledge about individual instruments, but at the expense of the bigger picture.…”

Section: Literature Review and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Controlling bureaucracies with fire alarms: policy instruments and cross-country patterns

Damonte¹,

Dunlop²,

Radaelli³

2014

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The political control of the bureaucracy is a major theme in public administration scholarship, particularly in delegation theory. There is a wide range of policy instruments suitable for the purpose of control. In practice, however, there are economic and political limitations to deploying the full arsenal of control tools. We explore the implications of the costs of control by examining cross-country patterns of fire alarms. We identify and categorize a set of control instruments and their rationale using accountability typologies. We then code the presence or absence of different instruments by drawing on an original dataset of 14 instruments in a population of 17 European countries. Using configurational analysis, we analyse cross-country patterns. In the conclusions, we reflect on the patterns identified, their implications for controlling bureaucracy in advanced democracies and the literature on administrative traditions. We finally propose how our empirical findings may be extended to further explanatory analyses.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Controlling bureaucracies with fire alarms: policy instruments and cross-country patterns

Damonte¹,

Dunlop²,

Radaelli³

2014

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It, therefore, is not surprising that this direct form of utilization prevails in various recent studies on RIA usage (Ellig et al . ; Shapiro & Morrall ; Taylor et al . ).…”

Section: Typology Of Ria Utilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking

Rissi

Sager

2012

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ex ante policy appraisals, such as Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), are promoted because they are expected to inform decisionmakers and, thus, to lead to better quality regulation. Such instrumental use is not the only possible use of RIAs. Ex ante policy appraisal can affect the policy process in various ways. However, a consolidated theory on the conditions for utilization of RIAs in the policy process has yet to be developed. In order to explore these conditions, we analyze three case studies of Swiss decisionmaking processes and apply concepts from knowledge utilization literature. In conclusion, we find that policy arenas matter more than the institutional context and design of RIA procedures. In line with previous literature, political use seems to be a prevalent type of utilization. Yet we find that, under specific conditions, RIAs also provide a basis for the optimization of policy designs (instrumental use), help improve interagency relations (policy-process use), and may change how a policy issue is understood (conceptual use).

show abstract

“…Standard CBA has been, for example, the recognized and required approach to policy appraisal and evaluation in the USA and in the UK for a long time (Shapiro andMorrall III 2012, Pearce 1998) and more recently across Europe (e.g. since 2000 for the formulation of the European Commission's Cohesion Policy; European Commission 2008).…”

Section: The Use Of Multi-criteria Decision-support Methods For Consimentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Scrieciu

Belton

Chalabi

et al. 2014

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/45742/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. Authors accepted manuscript. Published as:Scriecu, S., Belton, V., Chalabi, Z., Mechler, R., Puig, D. (2014) There are growing calls for identifying climate mitigation and adaptation policypackages that would also support human development objectives at the national and regional levels. The literature on climate policy analysis and impact assessment continues to be driven by standard economics with its body of competitive general equilibrium optimization models and cost-benefit analysis techniques of aggregation and monetization. However, its recommendations for climate action are often based on highly restrictive underlying assumptions, which have been increasingly criticized for being too prescriptive, not adequately capturing salient observed socioeconomic realities, and not acknowledging pluralism in values.The main aim of this paper is to put forward a new methodological approach that seeks to address these deficiencies. A generic but comprehensive framework eliciting mitigationadaptation-development interactions, accounting for institutional barriers, and drawing on a combination of an emerging body of new climate economics and multi-criteria decision analysis is suggested. We purport that, by using this framework, multi-dimensional impacts and multistakeholder interests could be better represented when planning climate policy actions. We also argue that analytical tools drawing on economic thinking which embraces interdisciplinary analysis and deep uncertainty and avoids the fallacy of unique optimal solutions, may deliver more effective strategies for pushing economies onto the transformational pathways required.

show abstract

The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience

Cited by 34 publications

References 23 publications

Controlling bureaucracies with fire alarms: policy instruments and cross-country patterns

Controlling bureaucracies with fire alarms: policy instruments and cross-country patterns

Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About