Global Indicators of Regulatory Governance

A growing number of regulators understand the benefits of conducting regulatory impact assessments (RIAs). According to GIRG’s findings, 86 out of 186 countries carry out RIAs on either regular or semi-regular basis. However, the existing RIA practices substantially vary in scope as well as in applied methodologies. The most common regulatory areas evaluated by RIAs include the general expected benefits from a proposed regulation and its specific impact on the public and private sector, while the least common ones are the potential impact on international obligations or agreements and the impact on the environment.

Less than half of countries have specific criteria used for determining which proposed regulations are subjected to an impact assessment. Japan, Bahrain and Malta use monetary thresholds, while in Greece RIAs tend to accompany drafts of major social and economic importance - the ones affecting over 40 percent of the general population or the ones that may have an economic impact on economically important sectors (i.e. tourism, maritime policy, SMEs etc.). Conversely, Moldova limits impact assessments to regulations containing norms governing entrepreneurial activity.

Out of the sample of 59 high-income countries, only 14 do not carry out RIAs: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait, Oman, Palau, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, St. Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay. Conversely, RIAs are sparse in low- and middle-income economies. For instance, only 12 percent of low-income countries surveyed conduct some form of analysis of potential impacts of proposed regulations. In addition, in a number of countries RIAs are carried out only by individual ministries and are not practiced homogeneously across regulatory institutions.

The regulatory impact assessment (RIA) practice in different regions

In all the regions RIAs are mostly conducted across the entire government

Fifty-four out of 86 countries that implement RIAs have a specialized government body tasked with conducting, reviewing and commenting on impact assessments implemented by different agencies. Such bodies exist primarily in countries where RIAs are carried out throughout the entire government. Some of these specialized oversight agencies are responsible for determining which regulatory reforms require impact assessment. However, their most common prerogative is to provide guidance to experts conducting RIAs. Overall, despite not having a legal obligation to implement RIAs, about one-third of economies (31 out of 86) do so as good practice.

Optimal decision making on regulatory matters can only be ensured when a robust and consistent RIA methodology is followed. Yet, 21 countries do not have any specific guidelines for officials completing the assessments. All OECD high-income countries with the exception of Italy and Chile have specific RIA guidelines, compared to only three economies in Sub-Saharan Africa (Uganda, South Africa and Kenya).

The regulatory impact assessment practice at different income levels

None of the low-income countries have legal requirements to conduct RIAs

For further details see Worldwide Practices of Regulatory Impact Assessments

This year GIRG presents new data on the practice of reviewing regulations after their enactment. Ex-post reviews ensure that regulations remain up to date, are cost effective and continue to deliver desired policy outcomes. This practice is most prevalent in OECD high-income countries. Surprisingly, in Europe and Central Asia only 6 out of 21 economies surveyed conduct ex-post reviews. And only a handful of low-income countries, including Afghanistan, Nepal and Uganda, conduct such reviews.

Implementation of ex-post reviews across regions

Ex-post reviews are least common in Sub-Saharan Africa

Note: these data have been collected from 132 countries

Globally, there is a wide range of ex-post review processes and methods. Most countries in the Middle East and North Africa as well as South Asia regions conduct ex-post reviews on an ad hoc basis. On the contrary, OECD high-income, Europe and Central Asian and Latin America and the Caribbean countries use more diverse approaches, such as stock-flow linkage rules or statutory sunset clauses.

Diverse implementation of ex-post reviews

Across regions ex-post reviews are most commonly implemented on an ad-hoc basis

Worldwide, most countries have systems in place that allow easy access to regulations either online or in print. In the majority of high-income economies all the existing regulations are available through designated websites and can be accessed free of charge. Low-income countries, however, still tend to use journals and/or official gazettes to compile and publish regulations. Out of 186 countries covered by GIRG, 31 do not make their current regulations publicly available in a single place, including high-income economies, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Easily accessible laws and regulations

Less than 50 percent of low-income countries make current regulations publicly available in a frequently updated place

In general, inclusive rulemaking processes are prominent in the developed world and sorely lack among developing countries. Yet, while low-income economies tend to be less transparent, it is possible to have a high degree of transparency at all income levels. For example, based on the overall regulatory governance score, several lower-middle-income countries perform above the 3.48 average score of the high-income economies. On the opposite end, there are three high-income economies with a regulatory governance score of zero.

Regulatory governance score

High-income countries are global leaders in terms of inclusive and effective rulemaking practices

Eleven OECD high-income and three Europe and Central Asian countries receive the maximum possible score of 5 on inclusive, effective and transparent rulemaking. There is a clear correlation between economies’ income levels and regulatory quality scores, while country-specific practices vary within and across regions. Among low-income countries Uganda receives the highest scores of 3.25 and among lower-middle-income ones Kosovo and Moldova score 4.75 each, demonstrating that despite the robust relationship between income and regulatory quality, poorer countries can excel at adopting and following good rulemaking processes.

Regulatory governance score vis-à-vis comparable datasets

There is a strong association between the regulatory governance score and other similar datasets