An article looks at regulatory reform in Russia. Author outlines that the Russian economy suffers from excessive regulation. He argues that while promising plans to address this problem exist, the government lacks the political will to pursue them and has postponed this reform until the next political opening.
The article examines the international experience of using behavioral tools for increasing the effectiveness of public administration and assesses the prospects of their implementation in the Russian rulemaking practice. The first part provides a brief overview of the development of the theoretical framework of “nudge” and examines differences between the behavioral economy and the classical and neoclassical economic theory. Then, the authors describe practical cases of the application of behavioral «nudging» in various areas of regulation. The third part of the article concerns the experience of institutionalization of «nudging» at the state level in selected OECD countries and emerging countries, including a description of the specifics of the development and performance of specialized bodies (units) in leading states. The conclusion summarizes the prospects for, firstly, enriching the public administration theory with behavioral approaches, and, secondly, for institutionalization of behavioral insight unit within the Russian government.
This article reviews approaches to optimize the subject area of regulatory impact assessment in Russia, selected OECD countries, the Eurasian Economic Commission and the European Commission. The authors set the task to systematize the approaches applied at various levels of regulation, identify best practices and provide recommendations to optimize the model of regulatory impact assessment in Russia.
The authors identified three types of "filters" that set the criteria for the selection of draft acts subject to assessment: (a) the "primary" filter that determines the scope of RIA, including types of regulations, and sometimes – certain policy areas subject to RIA, (b) the "secondary" filter aimed at the selection of acts according to their significance, and (c) exclusions from the RIA subject area. The selection of the optimal combination of criteria, providing the selection of acts, in regards to which it is possible and expedient to carry out RIA, largely determines the effectiveness of RIA institute.
Studying experience of the countries, leading in the field of RIA, allowed noting that despite differences in approaches, there is a number of common trends. Specifically, draft regulations should be the subject to assessment, first of all, if they have a significant impact on the stakeholders of regulation (excluding draft regulations aimed at the elimination of technical mistakes in the regulations, the adoption of organizational decisions by the authorities, informational documents, etc.), and, secondly, if the regulatory body is authorized to elaborate alternative options of solving regulatory problem (there is no specified directive on a certain decision). A common method of the selection of significant draft acts sets so-called "threshold values" of potential costs (for budget, business entities, or the economy as a whole) which may be caused by the adoption of the draft act.
In Russia, given the development of RIA procedure and clear understanding of the essence of the procedure as a cooperative communication with business and experts by government employees, formal criteria will be reduced, and the selection of draft acts for evaluation will largely depend on the discretion of the officials proceeding from the basic criteria - the degree of impact and the choice of alternatives.
This article is devoted to developmet of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in Russia as part of the institutional reforms regarding legislative procedures.
Evaluation is an emerging field in Russia, and the authors have been intensively involved in it for over a decade. This article explores the evolution of evaluation capacity and describes the growth of evaluator competencies in Russia. It focuses on areas with extensive development: (a) the institutionalization of regulatory impact assessment in the public sector, (b) evaluation’s development in nongovernmental organizations, (c) the growth of monitoring and evaluation capacity in private foundations, and (d) the emergence of local independent evaluation consulting. Although no common definition of evaluator competencies exists in Russia, the role may be included in a professional registry currently under development.