制定更好的监管:咨询的效率如何?

Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen
{"title":"制定更好的监管:咨询的效率如何?","authors":"Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen","doi":"10.58235/sjpa.v25i1.7129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Formal consultation when designing new rules and regulations is a commonly used method to ensure regulatory quality. The foundation for this method of involvement is that it allows transparent and open transfer of knowledge from for instance organised interests to government bodies, and that it enables an easier filtering of expert advice from political idiosyncrasies among consultation partners. It is, however, an open question as to whether consultation is in fact efficient in doing so. To investigate that questions, this paper examines the Danish formal consultation system. The study examines response rates and concludes that the Danish consultation system is highly – and perhaps increasingly so – prioritised both in the administration and among consultation partners. However, previous studies have shown that the system has little practical effect on legislation. These two – response rates and amenability – are then coupled to discuss the system’s efficiency. The system’s inefficiency – it demands a lot of energy and priority but has little effect – stress that the main function of the system cannot be said to be its contribution to regulatory quality. Instead, it serves other aims – aims that are not reflected in the system’s design and use. This causes a mismatch between expectations and practice and calls for renewed discussion – both theoretical and practical – on the role of formal consultation systems.","PeriodicalId":31772,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Better Regulation: How Efficient is Consultation?\",\"authors\":\"Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen\",\"doi\":\"10.58235/sjpa.v25i1.7129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Formal consultation when designing new rules and regulations is a commonly used method to ensure regulatory quality. The foundation for this method of involvement is that it allows transparent and open transfer of knowledge from for instance organised interests to government bodies, and that it enables an easier filtering of expert advice from political idiosyncrasies among consultation partners. It is, however, an open question as to whether consultation is in fact efficient in doing so. To investigate that questions, this paper examines the Danish formal consultation system. The study examines response rates and concludes that the Danish consultation system is highly – and perhaps increasingly so – prioritised both in the administration and among consultation partners. However, previous studies have shown that the system has little practical effect on legislation. These two – response rates and amenability – are then coupled to discuss the system’s efficiency. The system’s inefficiency – it demands a lot of energy and priority but has little effect – stress that the main function of the system cannot be said to be its contribution to regulatory quality. Instead, it serves other aims – aims that are not reflected in the system’s design and use. This causes a mismatch between expectations and practice and calls for renewed discussion – both theoretical and practical – on the role of formal consultation systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i1.7129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i1.7129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在制定新的规章制度时进行正式咨询是确保规章质量的常用方法。这种参与方式的基础是,它允许从有组织的利益团体向政府机构透明和公开地转移知识,而且它可以更容易地从咨询伙伴的政治特质中过滤出专家建议。然而,协商在这样做方面是否确实有效,这是一个悬而未决的问题。为了探究这些问题,本文考察了丹麦的正式协商制度。这项研究审查了答复率,并得出结论,丹麦的协商制度在行政部门和协商伙伴中都得到高度重视,而且可能越来越重视。然而,以往的研究表明,该制度在立法上的实际效果甚微。然后将响应率和适应性这两个指标结合起来讨论系统的效率。该体系的低效率——它需要大量精力和优先权,但收效甚微——强调,不能说该体系的主要功能是它对监管质量的贡献。相反,它服务于其他目标——这些目标没有反映在系统的设计和使用中。这造成了期望和实践之间的不匹配,并要求重新讨论正式协商制度的作用- -理论和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making Better Regulation: How Efficient is Consultation?
Formal consultation when designing new rules and regulations is a commonly used method to ensure regulatory quality. The foundation for this method of involvement is that it allows transparent and open transfer of knowledge from for instance organised interests to government bodies, and that it enables an easier filtering of expert advice from political idiosyncrasies among consultation partners. It is, however, an open question as to whether consultation is in fact efficient in doing so. To investigate that questions, this paper examines the Danish formal consultation system. The study examines response rates and concludes that the Danish consultation system is highly – and perhaps increasingly so – prioritised both in the administration and among consultation partners. However, previous studies have shown that the system has little practical effect on legislation. These two – response rates and amenability – are then coupled to discuss the system’s efficiency. The system’s inefficiency – it demands a lot of energy and priority but has little effect – stress that the main function of the system cannot be said to be its contribution to regulatory quality. Instead, it serves other aims – aims that are not reflected in the system’s design and use. This causes a mismatch between expectations and practice and calls for renewed discussion – both theoretical and practical – on the role of formal consultation systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信