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.

No abstract

Learning from the successes and failures of others is a necessity in the field of public sector innovation. The rapid diffusion of policy innovations in different countries has been characterized by a schizophrenic adoption of practices with governments utilizing those considered the “best” as well as those deemed capable of actually providing solutions to policy problems. Nevertheless, the replication of policy innovations in different countries has been met with varying degrees of success. The adoption of the Standard Cost Model in a number of European countries, a methodology to measure red tape and improve the quality of regulation provides an excellent example of this due to it being met with success in some countries while failing inexplicably in others.

No abstract

ISBN 978 1 78254 955 0 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78254 956 7 (eBook)