Pubblicazioni

Simpler government arrived four years ago. It helped put money in your pocket. It saved hours of your time. It improved your children’s diet, lengthened your life span, and benefited businesses large and small. It did so by issuing fewer regulations, by insisting on smarter regulations, and by eliminating or improving old regulations. Cass R. Sunstein, as administrator of the most powerful White House office you’ve never heard of, oversaw it and explains how it works, why government will never be the same again (thank goodness), and what must happen in the future. Cutting-edge research in behavioral economics has influenced business and politics. Long at the forefront of that research, Sunstein, for three years President Obama’s “regulatory czar” heading the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, oversaw a far-reaching restructuring of America’s regulatory state. In this highly anticipated book, Sunstein pulls back the curtain to show what was done, why Americans are better off as a result, and what the future has in store. The evidence is all around you, and more is coming soon. Simplified mortgages and student loan applications. Scorecards for colleges and universities. Improved labeling of food and energy-efficient appliances and cars. Calories printed on chain restaurant menus. Healthier food in public schools. Backed by historic executive orders ensuring transparency and accountability, simpler government can be found in new initiatives that save money and time, improve health, and lengthen lives. Simpler: The Future of Government will transform what you think government can and should accomplish.

​

With the exception of few comparative case studies, the literature on regulatory reform and regulatory impact analysis (RIA) tends to focus on internal political actors, activities, and processes. Furthermore, empirical analyses of new public management have overlooked the dynamics of communications among networks of administrative reformers. This article fills these gaps, presenting results of an event history analysis on the diffusion of RIA. It probes rationales for the origin of RIA and administrative capacity explanations in combination with variables referring to international and transnational communication channels of administrative reforms. A hypothesis based on legal origin is also tested. The findings show that the decision to adopt RIA rests on transnational networks as well as administrative variables such as government expenditure and legal origin.

European governments have adopted policy instruments for regulatory appraisal, oversight, ex‐post evaluation, and simplification in the context of the so‐called ‘smart regulation agenda’. In this article we compare the two most important instruments, that is, regulatory impact assessment (RIA) and the standard cost model (SCM). We answer the following questions: What are the economic rationales that, at least in principle, should make the SCM and RIA work? What are the learning models that, yet again in principle, allow the two instruments to produce effects? The RIA economic rationale is grounded in welfare economics. The SCM economics is rudimentary: one can hardly make an economic case for the SCM. With regard to learning models, RIA draws on rational‐synoptic models, whilst the SCM is inspired by experience‐based learning. We then discuss economic rationales and learning models jointly, thus explaining the different implementation patterns of the two instruments and exposing the ambiguities in the relationship among instruments, ideas, and behavioural change.

​

This report offers a brief introduction to behavioural science and its application in an EU policy context. It explains what needs to be taken into consideration when applying behavioural science to policy. It stresses the need to identify the behavioural element of a policy and select the appropriate method of research. The report also provides illustrations of how behavioural science has been applied in the past and offers practical recommendations for designing behavioural studies.

​

​

​

The government has published a revised set of government consultation principles. These principles give clear guidance to government departments on conducting consultations. We have amended the principles in the light of comments from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and to demonstrate the government’s desire to engage more effectively with the public. We will use more digital methods to consult with a wider group of people at an earlier stage in the policy-forming process. We will make it easier for the public to contribute their views, and we will try harder to use clear language and plain English in consultation documents. We will also reduce the risk of ‘consultation fatigue’ by making sure we consult only on issues that are genuinely undecided.