Annex B. The 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey and the composite indicators

The 2017 Regulatory Indicators Survey

The 2017 Regulatory Indicators Survey is structured around the areas of good practices described in the 2012 Recommendation (OECD, 2012). It supported the collection of data on the content of regulatory policies, as well as on the requirements and practices of countries in the areas of: stakeholder engagement, regulatory impact assessment and ex post evaluation (see details of the survey structure in Figure A ‎B.1).

Figure A B.1. Structure of the 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey

This is the second edition of the Regulatory Indicators survey, following a first edition in 2014. The Regulatory Indicators Surveys 2014 and 2017 follow up on previous Regulatory Management Surveys carried out in 1998, 2005, and 2008/09. Compared to the Regulatory Management Surveys, the Regulatory Indicators Survey puts a stronger focus on evidence and examples to support country responses, as well as on insights into how different countries approach similar regulatory policy requirements. They are based on an ambitious and forward-looking regulatory policy agenda and designed to track progress in regulatory policy over time. The surveys capture progress in countries that already have advanced regulatory practices, while recognising the efforts of countries that are just starting to develop their regulatory policy. In addition to collecting information on formal requirements, they gather evidence on the implementation of these formal requirements and the uptake of regulatory management practices. The surveys mostly focus on the processes of developing regulations that are carried out by the executive branch of the national government.

The information collected through the 2017 Regulatory Indicators survey is valid as of 31 December 2017. It is envisaged that the survey be updated every three years. Additional questions may be added in the future to expand the scope of the survey. Information from the 2017 survey is analysed against time-series data from the 2014 survey.

The composite indicators

Three composite indicators were developed based on information collected through the survey: one for RIA, one for stakeholder engagement and one for ex post evaluation. Each composite indicator is composed of four equally weighted categories (Figure A ‎B.2):

• Systematic adoption which records formal requirements and how often these requirements are conducted in practice;

• Methodology which gathers information on the methods used in each area, e.g. the type of impacts assessed or how frequently different forms of consultation are used;

• Oversight and quality control records the role of oversight bodies and publically available evaluations; and

• Transparency which records information from the questions that relate to the principles of open government e.g. whether government decisions are made publically available.

Figure A B.2. Structure of composite indicators

Each category is composed of several equally weighted sub-categories built around specific questions in the 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey. The separate sub-categories are listed in Table A ‎B.1.

Table A B.1. Overview of categories and sub-categories of composite indicators
	Stakeholder engagement	Regulatory impact assessment	Ex post analysis
Methodology	Consultation open to the general public: during early stages of developing regulations Consultation open to the general public: during later stages of developing regulations Guidance Methods of stakeholder engagement adopted in early stages of developing regulations Methods of stakeholder engagement adopted in later-stages of developing regulations Minimum periods Use of interactive websites1	Assessment of budget and public sector impacts Assessment of competition impacts Assessment of other economic impacts Assessment of other impacts Assessment of environmental impacts Assessment of social impacts Assessment of distributional effects Assessment of wider cost (e.g. macroeconomic costs) Benefits identified for specific groups Consideration of issues of compliance and enforcement Costs identified for specific groups Guidance Identify and assess regulatory options Requirement to identify benefits Requirement to identify costs Requirement to identify process of assessing progress in achieving regulation’s goals Requirement to qualitatively assess benefits Requirement to quantify benefits Requirement to quantify costs Risk assessment Types of costs quantified	Assessment of costs and benefits Assessment of achievement of goals Assessment of impacts Assessment of consistency with other regulations Established methodologies and guidance
Systematic adoption	Formal requirements Stakeholder engagement conducted in practice in early stages of developing regulations Stakeholder engagement conducted in practice in later stages of developing regulations	Formal requirements RIA conducted in practice Proportionality	Use of mechanisms for review including ad hoc reviews Formal requirements Ex post evaluations conducted in practice In-depth reviews Presence of standing body Proportionality
Oversight and Quality Control	Oversight and quality control function Publically available evaluation of stakeholder engagement	Oversight Publically available evaluation of RIA Quality control	Oversight and quality control function Publically available evaluation of ex post analysis
Transparency	Transparency of process Consultations are made open to general public Consideration and response to stakeholder comments Availability of information	Responsibility and transparency Transparency of Process	Ongoing stakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagement Transparency of process
← 1. Following advice from the OECD Steering Group on Measuring Regulatory Performance, the sub-categories “Use of interactive websites during early stages of developing regulations” and “Use of interactive websites during later stages of developing regulations” used in 2014 were merged for the 2018 edition of the composite indicators. Scores for the 2014 composite indicators were adjusted accordingly to ensure over-time comparability.

To ensure full transparency, the methodology for constructing the composite indicators and underlying data as well as the results of the sensitivity analysis to different methodological choices, including the weighting system, has been made available publicly on the OECD website (http://oe.cd/ireg).

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page