institutional framework for regulatory policy in germany
TRANSCRIPT
Independent partnersfor better regulation
Several partners, who are independet fromthe Federal Government, are involved in thebetter regulation agenda:• Regulatory Control Council (NKR)• Federal Statistical Office • Court of Auditors, Constitutional Court• Business and civil society organisations• State Governments, self-administrative
bodies• Members of the Parliament• Political Parties• Those, who are concerned
Cooperation of institutions forBetter Regulation
, inter alia:
BK 133 SN | institutional framework | 15 June 2016 | slide 3
The Independent Regulatory Control Council (RCC)
• Ten members nominated by the Federal Government
Experts and scientists with experience in legislative matters
Members may not belong to a legislative body or to a public authority
• Appointed by Federal President for five years (differs from election term)
• RCC examines each legal proposal, whether information on compliance costs and other parts of the explanatory memorandum are comprehensive and comply with the methodology
• Statement is attached to the cabinet draft and is passed to Parliament and Bundesrat (representation of state governments): statement becomes public
• RCC shall not comment on the intended purposes and aims of regulations
• RCC reports to the chancellor annually; report is forwarded to Parliament
15 June 2016 || Seite 4BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnem
t,
Th
om
as I
mo
Important institutions:Political Parties
Article 21 of the German Constitution:“(1) Political parties shall participate in the for-mation of the political will of the people. Theymay be freely establish-ed. Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. …”
Source: Article 21 of the German
Grundgesetz
Chairpersons of CDU, SPD, and CSU sign the„coalition agreement“ 16 December 2013 prior tobuilding a new government. The agreementdetermins usually most (in practice up to 90 per cent) of the government‘s legislative iniatives.
15 June 2016 || Seite 8BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Ber
gman
n
Federal Statistical Office: centralservices for Better Regulation
• (public) databases formeasuring the successof the government‘sprogramme (legal obligation)
• Internal monitoring• Empirical validation
of compliance costs• Support of ministries
on request: ex ante and ex post evaluation
• Surveys on life events• Methodology
BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |15 June 2016 || Seite 9
© F
eder
al G
ov.
, Gü
ngö
r
© c
olo
urb
ox
© www.destatis.de
Constitutional court (2010): Principle of rationality of legislation
• Principle of rationality (derived from rule of law, Art. 20 (3), GG)
• Principle of trans-parency of procedure and results (derived from the principle of democracy, Art. 20 (1) & (2), and the right of public access, Art. 42 (1) first sentence, GG) Legislation must be based on evidence.
15 June 2016 || Seite 10BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Rei
nek
e
Source: Hartz IV-ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 125, 175)
Administrationin Germany
• 16 states
• 11.000 municipalities
• numerous self-administrating bodies (e.g. social insurance)
• numerous chambers with compulsory membership carrying out public duties
© Bundesamt für Karthographie und Geodäsie
BK 133 SN | institutional framework | 15 June 2016 | slide 11
State Governments and municipa-lities: partners for Federal legislation
• State Governments areinvolved in Federal legislation formallyand informally;
• Umbrella organiza-tions of municipalitiesare treated as privilegedstakeholders;
• Chancellery hosts a working group withState Gov‘s and muni-cipalities since 2007;
• Costs of administrativesector are part of com-pliance costs
15 June 2016 || Seite 12BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Ber
gman
n
Proof of concept: Does the Parliament pay attention?
Some measures re issueof compliance costs:• Part of the cover sheet• Table with statement
of NKR• Comprehensibility as
core criteria forquality of method
Some effects: c-costs are• … usually mentioned in
reports of committees• plenary speakers refer
to c-costs more often
BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | 15 June 2016 || Seite 13
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Ku
gler
© Federal Government, Bergmann
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Kö
hle
r
Source: OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, 2014, p. 34
Proof of concept: Evaluationcould focus on different issues
Have the good
practices been
implemented?
E.g. percentage of RIAs that comply with formal requirementse.g. quality ofpost-implementatio n reviews
• Regulatory system • Regulatory impacts• Other factors that influence outcome
Feedback loop
Input Process OutputIntermediate
outcome
Economic: Net benefits (possibly in comparison with counterfactual and alternatives)Efficient and streamlined: Compliance costs and burdens (possibly integrated into net benefits; Reduced enforcement costs) Perception of regulatory quality in general Improved compliance rate Transparent and easy to access
Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in a specific sector been achieved?
Effectiveness – market failure/problem/risk was solved or mitigated Protection and benefits of the public, responsive and accountable
Facts-based and perception based sector-specific indicators: ENVIRONMENTe.g. SOxandNOxemissions, concentration of airpollutants inurban areas SAFETY HEALTH
Regulatory outcomes
Set strategic objectives for
regulatory policy in general
Set strategic objectives for
regulatory policy in
specific sectors(e.g. Health,
Environment, Education)
Design Implementation Strategic outcome
I II III IV
easy hard
Are requirements
for good regulatory practices in
place?
E.g. requirements for objective-setting, consultation, evidence-based analysis, simplification, risk assessments (e.g. indicatorsof regulatory management type), aligning regulatory changes internationally
What resources are committed?
E.g. budget, staffing, expertise
Have good practices helped to
get quality regulation?
E.g. % of those involved in the regulatory process that think RIA has improved the quality of regulation as opposed to being a tick-the box-exercise; comparison of costs/benefits of initial regulatory proposal to those of actual regulation that was passed
V
Regulatory quality
Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in general been achieved?
BK 133 SN | institutional framework | 15 June 2016 | slide 14
Proof of concept: Experience of stakeholders?
On behalf of the Federal Government the Federal Statistical Office under-takes a bi-annual surveyon the perception of thequality of law and theadministration regarding32 life events for citizensand businesses.
First results (2015):• high overall satisfaction• top: no discrimination• flop: comprehensibility
BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |15 June 2016 || Seite 15
© F
eder
al G
ove
rnm
ent,
Ku
gler
© Dong-Ha Cho © Sebastian Bolesch
-1,16
0,60
0,13
2,00
2,00
2,00
0,85
1,62
1,32
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
Employment agency
Residents registration office
Overall
All respondents 25% with highest levels of satisfaction 25% with lowest levels of satisfaction Average across all situations/life events:
1.06
Overall satisfaction with perceivedquality of law and administration;here: life event „birth of a child“
Source: www.amtlich-einfach.de
Key elements of a new betterregulation culture
• Binding methods: e.g. estimating costs starts always with a single typical case
• Quality of data and processes: indepen-dent scrutiny, public databases, stake-holder involvement
• Monitoring allows to agree + control targets
• Political committment ©C
olo
urb
ox
©P
ress
e-u
nd
Info
rmat
ion
sam
td
erB
un
des
regi
erun
g
BK 133 SN | institutional framework | 15 June 2016 | slide 16
Contact
Thank you for your attention!
Federal ChancelleryBetter Regulation UnitWilly-Brandt-Str. 1D-10557 BerlinGERMANY
Stephan [email protected]. +49 (0) 30 18 400-1360
www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Issues/better-regulation/_node.htmlwww.amtlich-einfach.dehttps://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/BureaucracyCosts/BureaucracyCosts.html
Recommendation on RegulatoryPolicy and Governance
1. Central Coordination2. Participation3. Monitoring/Oversight4. Impact Assessment5. Stock Review/Evaluation6. Performance Review7. Accountability/Agencies8. Admin. + Judical Review9. Risk andRegulation10.Coherenceacross levels11.Sub-national Capacity12.International Regulatory
Co-operation
15 June 2016 || Seite 18
BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© Presse- und Informationsamt der BReg, Sandra Steins
Compliance costs rarely above1 Mio Euro or 100k hrs p.a.
Only a few drafts causecompliance costs ofmore than 1 Mio Euro or100,000 hrs p.a.
Regulations beyond thethreshhold are going toevaluated frequently.
Evaluation reports will be sent to independentadvisory board and tothe Federal Govern-ment‘s coordinator.Source: Federal Statistical Office
33
7
34
5
33
3
27
0
40
33
28
50
15 3
0
68
2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5
number of draftregulations (primary andsecondary legislation)
thereof: number of draftswith compliance costs > 1Mio. Euro p.a. or > 100khrs p.a.
thereof: number ofintended evaluations
15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | | Seite 20
„Red-tape-index“ for thebusiness sector declines
100,13
Änderung der Meldeverfahren in der Sozialversicherung (-125 Mio. Euro)
Umsetzung Bilanzrichtlinie (-87 Mio. Euro)
Umsetzung Elektroschrottrichtlinie (+83 Mio. Euro)
99,1Bürokratieentlastungsgesetz (-500 Mio. Euro)
Modernisierung Vergaberecht (-185 Mio. Euro)
Δ -1,03 Punkte
(ca. -450 Mio.€
pro Jahr)
FinanzanlagenvermittlerVONachmessung (+185 Mio. Euro)
15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | 21
The compliance costs „brake“Implementing „One in, one out“
„For every additional burden created by new regulatory proposals, an equivalent portion of the existing burden is removed. “
Few exemptions:• Adoption of EU-legis-
lation, treaties and court decisions
• Combatting substantial threats
Source: Council of Ministers 25 March 2015
©C
olo
urb
ox
15 June 2016 | slide 22BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
Compliance Costs ofAdministrative Sector as of 2012
Compliance costs of theadminsitrative sectorinclude costs of publicauthorities at federal, regional, municipallevel, and of self-administrative bodies.
Costs are under control, but raise slightly.
206 245
-199
24
794
283
809
357
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2012 2013 2014 2015
ongoing compliance costs administrative sector [Mio. Euro p.a.]
one-time compliance costs administrative sector [Mio. Euro]
Source: Federal Government, annual report on better regulation 2015
15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | | Seite 23
Excel-tool ERBEX supports requestsre compliance costs of states/municip.
15 June 2016 || Seite 24BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
AnnexElderly care
“The Federal Government … wishes to reduce bureaucracy in the documentation requirements in care establishments ...More efficient documentation enables nursing staff to win back time for their primary duty of caring for patients. …“
Annual report of the Federal Governmentregarding better regulation 2014, page 17
Simplification of documentationrequirements in elderly care
• Focus of the project: age 65+, out of job, private or public in-surance, needs care
• 200 interviews withpeople, who need(permanent) care, operators, caringstaff, administration
• 940 sets of data• Care operators belong
to business sector• Care administration in
self-administratingbodies
15 June 2016 || Seite 26BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© is
tock
Main results
Lorem ipsum dolor mis eceaquate niet qui dem si optatquas vellabore mo mollorepre dolupta-tur, omnihil ium quae. Que numquam exped quiatis enia nempor rere officab int.
Accaborro doloris estio ima doluptiis voluptatur.
15 June 2016 || Seite 27BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
Analyzed types of applications and procedures Compliance costs
in Mio. Euro p.a.
10 types of applications analysed 449
Determining care level (basic application) 110
reimbursement for consumables (3 types) 149
reimbursement of technical devices (3 types) 69
reimbursement for medical support (3 types) 122
Call for custodian of an adult person (age 65+) 0,09
Documentation requirements elderly care 2.700
Source: Federal Statistical Office
Detailed results fordocumentation requirements
15 June 2016 || Seite 28BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
29
25
121
364
290
1.856
48
0 500 1.000 1.500
Archiving of documents
Transmission of servicedocumentation
routine evaluation ofcaring plan
add ons to care report
notifications regardingcare report
fill-in servicedocumentation
set-up of documentationfor a single patient
in Mio. Euro p.a.
Source: Federal Statistical Office
Project partners: care persons shallbenefit from simplification
The simplified care-documentation developed with the project partners cuts red tape in care docu-mentation without preju-dicing professional stan-dards, jeopardisingquality or incurring liability risks. Instead of nurses having to complete pages of check-lists covering routine tasks, only deviations from basic routine care and treat-ment are documented.
15 June 2016 || Seite 29BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
© U
lf D
iete
r
Surveys on life events reflect on per-cieved quality of application procedures
15 June 2016 || Seite 30BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |
Continue tomonitor
Investigate hiddenopportunities
Tacklechallenges
Keep up thegood work
satisfactionincorruptibility
non-discrimination
importance
helpfullness of staffwaitingtime
trust in authorityoverall duration of process
information on the varioussteps of the application process
information on what happens next
comprehensibility of forms
comprehensibility of the law
option of e-government
physical accessibilityaccess to necessary forms etc.
access to the competent office
expertise of staffopening hours
average
Source: www.amtlich-einfach.de; life event: need for care
© L
iesa
Jo
han
nse
n