Pubblicazioni

The EU Commission regularly consults with external actors when preparing policy proposals. This paper investigates possible bias in the voices the Commission listens to across all policy areas and consultation instruments. We map the full range of consultation instruments used by the Commission and analyse variation in group representation across types of consultations and policy areas. Our analysis draws on a dataset of more than 350 major Commission proposals between 2011 and 2016. We find that the Commission has established a consultation regime with the widespread use of standard consultation instruments, including open online consultations, stakeholder conferences and consultation in closed fora. The range of consulted actors depends on both consultation instruments and policy types. Open online-consultations are most inclusive. Our findings indicate that the Commission may be able to counteract the influence of business by selecting the most appropriate format for consultation.

Behavioural insights (BI) has become widely used by public bodies around the world, mostly towards improving the way policies are implemented and influencing individual behaviour. As the field of BI evolves to tackle more complex policy issues, there is widespread perception that BI can and should go beyond the study of individual-level decision processes for higher impact. This report presents research on applying BI to changing the behaviour of organisations, with a focus on fostering elements of a safety culture in the energy sector. It presents comparative findings from experiments with energy regulators in Canada, Ireland, Mexico and Oman, as well as guidance for applying BI to safety culture going forward.

​

​

​

An agency that fails to adequately consider the costs and benefits of its proposed regulatory changes increasingly places its rules at risk upon judicial review. Over the last couple of decades, courts have begun to expect agencies to use regulatory analysis techniques like cost-benefit analysis to justify their regulatory choices. This poses acute risks for the independent regulatory agencies, whose draft regulations are not reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the White House experts on cost-benefit analysis. Independent regulatory agencies have not fully opted in to OIRA’s regulatory review, likely because they expect that OIRA review portends the end of their ability to make independent decisions. But what if it didn’t? This article draws upon the author's 10+ years at OIRA to offer a new way forward: bespoke regulatory review. That is, bilateral negotiations resulting in agreements between independent regulatory agencies and OIRA, custom fit to each agency’s unique features.

When designing a policy, law, regulation or other type of “rule”, governments should always consider its likely effects. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) provides crucial information to decision-makers on whether and how to regulate to achieve public policy goals. RIA examines the impacts and consequences of a range of alternative options. RIA also helps policy makers defend a decision not to intervene in markets where the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. Regulatory Impact Assessment provides policy makers, civil servants and other public sector practitioners with a practical instrument for better designing and implementing RIA systems and strategies. The Principles cover a wide range of institutional organisations, tools and practices and present a list of critical steps as well as “dos and don’ts” for developing RIA frameworks. This report is part of the series OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy produced under the auspices of the OECD Regulatory Policy Committee. As with other reports in the series, it extends and elaborates on principles highlighted in the 2012 Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance.

The Centre for European Policy Studies launched a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cybersecurity in September 2019. The goal of this Task Force is to bring attention to the market, technical, ethical and governance challenges posed by the intersection of AI and cybersecurity, focusing both on AI for cybersecurity but also cybersecurity for AI. The Task Force is multi-stakeholder by design and composed of academics, industry players from various sectors, policymakers and civil society. The Task Force is currently discussing issues such as the state and evolution of the application of AI in cybersecurity and cybersecurity for AI; the debate on the role that AI could play in the dynamics between cyber attackers and defenders; the increasing need for sharing information on threats and how to deal with the vulnerabilities of AI-enabled systems; options for policy experimentation; and possible EU policy measures to ease the adoption of AI in cybersecurity in Europe. As part of such activities, this report aims at assessing the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on AI Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, presented on April 8, 2019. In particular, this report analyses and makes suggestions on the Trustworthy AI Assessment List (Pilot version), a non-exhaustive list aimed at helping the public and the private sector in operationalising Trustworthy AI. This report would like to contribute to this revision by addressing in particular the interplay between AI and cybersecurity. This evaluation has been made according to specific criteria: whether and how the items of the Assessment List refer to existing legislation (e.g. GDPR, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights); whether they refer to moral principles (but not laws); whether they consider that AI attacks are fundamentally different from traditional cyberattacks; whether they are compatible with different risk levels; whether they are flexible enough in terms of clear/easy measurement, implementation by AI developers and SMEs; and overall, whether they are likely to create obstacles for the industry

​

​