Publications

This article performs an ‘impact assessment’ of the EU Better Regulation Agenda. It considers whether there is a clear definition of the problems that the EU Better Regulation seeks to address, the evidence base, whether Better Regulation more effectively responds to those problems than alternative options, and what the costs, benefits and broader impacts of the the Agenda may be. The analysis suggests that while the Better Regulation Agenda generally promotes an open yet rational decision‐making process based on sound problem definitions and aiming at targeted solutions calibrated for optimum efficiency and effectiveness, some of its own problem assumptions remain unproven, it possesses contradictory traits and risks being counter productive. Furthermore, while EU Better Regulation may have benefits, it also entails significant costs that should not be overlooked. This assessment reveals the complex and multifaceted nature of EU Better Regulation, and the need to hold it to its own standards.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.

​

As algorithmic systems become more critical to decision making across many parts of society, there is increasing interest in how they can be scrutinised and assessed for societal impact, and regulatory and normative compliance. This report is primarily aimed at policymakers, to inform more accurate and focused policy conversations. It may also be helpful to anyone who creates, commissions or interacts with an algorithmic system and wants to know what methods or approaches exist to assess and evaluate that system.

Some argue that the global rise of behavioral approaches challenges the rationalist tradition in public policy. Others fear that it could undermine deliberation and public reasoning. This paper focuses on the worldwide rise and spread of behavioral expertise and behavioral public policy. It provides a general insight in terms of the role of expertise, the science-policy nexus and the distribution of epistemic competences in public policy. Based on an extensive literature review, the emergence and consequences of behavioral-expert networks are assessed. It will be suggested that it is necessary to break free from the microfocus proposed by behavioral public policy and to pay more attention to the institutional and cultural constellations of knowledge- and decision-making in democracies.

Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) have gained prominence in government as policy advisors and are increasingly linked to the way policy instruments are designed. Despite the rise of BITs as unique knowledge brokers mediating the use of behavioral insights for policymaking, they remain underexplored in the growing literature on policy advice and advisory systems. The article emphasizes that the visible impact that BITs have on the content of policy instruments, the level of political support they garner and their structural diversity in different political departments, all set them apart from typical policy brokers in policy advisory systems connecting the science–policy divide.

One-stop shops have emerged as a way for governments to provide better services and improve regulatory delivery to citizens and business. The OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy: One-Stop Shops for Citizens and Business offer a set of practical considerations for designing, operating, and reviewing one-stop shops. The Principles are based on a series of case studies and cover a wide range of tools and institutional arrangements to help governments improve their one-stop shops. This report is part of a series on “best practice principles” 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.

-Introduzione, di Federica Cacciatore e Nicoletta Rangone -La nuova legislatura europea 2019-2024 e l’agenda della better regulation: le prime mosse, di Nadia Marin -Capire la nostra natura politica nell’era della post-verità. Un report dell’Unione Europea, di Edoardo Guaschino -L’intervento regolatorio dell’ART in materia di affidamenti dei servizi di trasporto pubblico locale su strada e per ferrovia: analisi ex ante o ex post dell’impatto?, di Miriam Giorgio -L’Antitrust e la stima dell’impatto economico delle regolazioni anticoncorrenziali, di Gabriele Mazzantini -Quando applicare l’AIR? Il caso delle Linee guida n. 15 dell’ANAC sul conflitto di interessi nei contratti pubblici, di Luca Caianiello -Valorizzare la polivalenza dei dati personali per regolare i mercati digitali: note aggiuntive all’Indagine conoscitiva sui big data di AGCOM, AGCM e Garante privacy, di Matteo Falcone -Recensione. Processo decisionale automatizzato e diritto amministrativo: quali implicazioni per il principio di trasparenza? La riflessione di Michèle Finck, di Ludovica Sacchi

EU competition law is traditionally understood in two-dimensions: judicial control and enforcement. This paper considers a third dimension: its normative concerns in the context of EU law. In mapping the future of these dimensions, the paper asks if the understanding behind the modernisation of the Commission’s enforcement is still tenable. In relation to judicial control, the effects-based approach of modernisation has either been incorporated by the case law at the cost of its coherence or ignored. Regarding enforcement, modernisation has resulted in the Commission having to step outside its guidance and in multiple proposals to adjust competition rules. As for the normative dimension, modernisation’s emphasis on consumer welfare has not prevented openness to broader concerns and setting this priority aside in reaction to COVID-19. The direction of modernisation will thus continue to raise judicial difficulties and, should it hamper enforcement, possibly lead to legislation that marginalises competition law. A better alternative would be, as was done for COVID-19, to reinforce the normative connection with the rest of EU law.

Summary: - Introduzione, di Federica Cacciatore e Nicoletta Rangone - Le nuove indicazioni OCSE in tema di qualità della regolazione: i best practice principles sulla valutazione ex post, di Siriana Salvi - Doing Business 2020. L’importanza della qualità e della trasparenza regolatoria per lo sviluppo economico e imprenditoriale, di Simone Annaratone - Macchine “intelligenti” e discrezionalità delle decisioni pubbliche. Alcuni spunti di riflessione sulla regolazione europea e italiana, di Patrizia Calabrese - La Relazione al Parlamento sullo stato di applicazione di AIR e VIR nel 2018, di Simona Morettini - IAL Annual Conference: analisi della crisi di fiducia nella legge e nella regolazione, di Rossana Amoroso - Recensione. Chi partecipa alle consultazioni delle Agenzie europee? I fattori che influenzano la cattura del regolatore, nella ricerca di Jan Beyers e Sarah Arras, di Carolina Raiola