Devolution is secondary: What drives Scottish secondary legislation?

Abstract

The reopening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 marked a great opportunity to create a modern government connected to the people. In spite of this, work on responsiveness and the functioning of policy‐making in Scotland since devolution has not been as extensive as it could be. This is certainly true of one of the most common and numerous policy‐making activities undertaken by Scotland and indeed all UK governments, the production of secondary legislation. This article uses time series cross‐sectional analyses to assess the effects of attention by the UK government, the EU, public priorities and the media on Scottish statutory instruments. It finds strong effects for the UK media on Scottish instruments although that effect is lower for policy areas technically, but not practically, outside the competencies of Scottish government. This work hints at a government responsive to events, but also a government that largely sets its own independent priorities.

Styles of regulatory discretion: A comparative analysis of the British and Israeli education legislation

“…First, it understands regulation as a form of bureaucratic legislation-that is, delegated legislation (Kosti et al, 2019a(Kosti et al, , 2019bKosti & Levi-Faur, 2019). In this regard, the actors in European countries with the powers to make regulations in the form of delegated legislation are often cabinet ministers (Bevan 2015(Bevan , 2021Page 2001Page , 2012, rather than the independent regulatory agencies in the US (Yackee & Yackee, 2012, 2016. Second, it emphasizes the importance of focusing on the nature of delegated powers (Coglianese & Yoo, 2016), and recognizes the necessity of focusing only on the delegation of regulatory powers.…”

Participation in welfare legislation—A poverty‐aware paradigm

“…While I recognize the existence of differences in process and institutional norms between the two normative levels of rulemaking, there are reasons to address them together in this context. First, participatory mechanisms work best when they are introduced on all levels of governance (Bevan, 2021; Bua, 2017), and it would be advisable to use poverty‐aware rulemaking on administrative levels and in constructing regulations. Second, I consider the “lower” normative level of poverty law, in general, to be intentional.…”

“…Even when critically analyzing the legislative process, scholars and courts refer to the participation of Members of Parliament in the legislation (Bar‐Siman‐Tov, 2016; Hogg & Bushell, 1997; Johnstone, 2008; Navot, 2006; Roznai & Mordechay, 2015)—not to the participation of other stakeholders or to the importance of minority representation within the legislative body (Ely, 1970). Scholarly discussion relating to participatory rulemaking, public involvement in government, and evidence‐based legislation (Bevan, 2021; Bua, 2017; Dryzek & Braithwaite, 2000; Hong & Cho, 2018; Lewallen et al, 2016) also fails to address welfare legislation and its specific characterization. The same can be said of the literature concerning collective governance and responsive regulation, which generally deals with actors such as the state, organizations, and business entities—and, only occasionally, ordinary citizens (Alm et al, 2021; Bevan, 2021; Hong & You, 2018, Michels & De Graaf, 2010).…”

“…Scholarly discussion relating to participatory rulemaking, public involvement in government, and evidence‐based legislation (Bevan, 2021; Bua, 2017; Dryzek & Braithwaite, 2000; Hong & Cho, 2018; Lewallen et al, 2016) also fails to address welfare legislation and its specific characterization. The same can be said of the literature concerning collective governance and responsive regulation, which generally deals with actors such as the state, organizations, and business entities—and, only occasionally, ordinary citizens (Alm et al, 2021; Bevan, 2021; Hong & You, 2018, Michels & De Graaf, 2010). The place of people in poverty, with their specific concerns and constraints, is overlooked.…”