Post on 02-Jan-2016
Meeting of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens
Dr. Johannes Ludewig Chairman of the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat
Brussels, 23 July 2013
Brussels, 23 July 2013 2
Background:
• End of 2012, NKR commissioned Prognos to conduct the study.
• In the German RIA system, the expected costs are quantified, the benefits of the regulatory proposal are described in a
qualitative way.
• Thus, the focus is on the cost side in the RIA process.
• This makes it more difficult to appraise whether the regulatory proposal shows an appropriate cost-benefit ratio.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 3
Objectives:
• Analysis of the international practice of quantifying and monetising the benefits of regulatory proposals (special focus
on non-market impacts)
• Four RIA systems were selected as basis for the study:- Australia- European Commission- United Kingdom- United States
• Stock-taking of different existing methods
• Lessons learnt for the German RIA system
Brussels, 23 July 2013 4
Approach:
• Review of relevant documents and academic literature
• Assessment of a sample of RIAs
A sample of 21 good practice RIAs were selected and reviewed.
• Research interviews with country experts
10 interviews had been conducted in order to validate previous findings and to gather assessments of the actual practice.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 5
Example 1: Americans with Disabilities Act
• Objective: Adopting accessibility standards which aim at non-discrimination on the basis of disability by public and commercial facilities.
• RIA considered two main benefits:
1) The time saved – monetisation by using average hourly wages
2) More independence and safety as well as avoided stigma and humiliation – cannot be directly quantified
• Solution: - Costs are well-known; they outweigh the benefits calculated from the time saved by 19 mio. USD per year
- IA asked if the value disabled people put on benefit 2) at least equals this difference in monetary values.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 6
Example 2: Tobacco Control Act
• Objective: Introduction of pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages and cigarette advertisements
• RIA considered a number of benefits, e.g. smoker‘s life-years saved, health status improvements, medical expenditure reduction
• Exemplary calculation: increased life expectancy
- Estimates of „Value of a Statistical Life Year“ from literature and previous analysis (100,000 – 300,000 USD) were used for calculating the WTP for a year of life saved;
- this value is multiplied by the expected amount of people who will stop smoking;
- estimated benefits between 1.45 and 22.56 billion USD.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 7
Main results (1):
• There is a wide variety of methods for quantification and monetisation of non-market impacts.
• Different forms of „Willingness to Pay“ is most common approach:
A market price is simulated by identifying the maximum amount of money a person is likely to pay to receive a certain
good.
• Further used forms/methods are: Willingness to Accept, Value of Statistical Life, Value of a Statistical Life Year, …
Brussels, 23 July 2013 8
Main results (2):
• In practice, the extent and level of quantification and monetisation is far lower than the guidelines and other documents would suggest.
• Between less than a quarter and just about half of the RIAs contained substantive monetisation and quantification of
impacts.
• Reasons for the lack of quantification often refer to problems in data availability and methodological difficulties in assessing and monetising social impacts.
• Costs and economic impacts were more frequently quantified.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 9
Main results (3):
• There are no reliable estimates available for the costs of conducting RIAs in general and quantifying and monetising benefits in particular.
• There is only patchy and anecdotal evidence that RIAs have a positive impact on the policy making process.
• But: Impact on the administrative part of the policy formulation process through a more systematic approach, transparency and openness.
Brussels, 23 July 2013 10
Lessons learnt for Germany (1):
• There is no easy to apply, standardised methodology available.
• One option could be the development of sector specific instruments and tools which could cover aspects of benefits partially and serve as indicator for the overall impact.
• Another, more feasible, option would be the strengthening of benefit assessment within an integrated approach by
- using potentials for standardisation
- increasing the degree of monetisation
- consistent application of methods within specific policy areas
Brussels, 23 July 2013 11
Lessons learnt for Germany (2):
• Preconditions:
- sufficient political commitment
- specific analytical capacities and competences
- integration of RIA into the policy making process
- independent quality assurance and oversight
- acceptance both within and outside government
Brussels, 23 July 2013 12
Next steps:
• Establishment of a Task Force composed of representatives of interested ministries, Better Regulation Unit and NKR
• Mandate of the Task Force would be to develop the basis for decision if and how benefits should be quantified in regulatory proposals.
• Organisation of a national as well as an international workshop in August