institutional framework for regulatory policy in germany

© im

ago

–w

este

nd

61

Institutional Framework forRegulatory Policy in Germany

Independent partnersfor better regulation

Several partners, who are independet fromthe Federal Government, are involved in thebetter regulation agenda:• Regulatory Control Council (NKR)• Federal Statistical Office • Court of Auditors, Constitutional Court• Business and civil society organisations• State Governments, self-administrative

bodies• Members of the Parliament• Political Parties• Those, who are concerned

Cooperation of institutions forBetter Regulation

, inter alia:

BK 133 SN | institutional framework | 15 June 2016 | slide 3

The Independent Regulatory Control Council (RCC)

• Ten members nominated by the Federal Government

Experts and scientists with experience in legislative matters

Members may not belong to a legislative body or to a public authority

• Appointed by Federal President for five years (differs from election term)

• RCC examines each legal proposal, whether information on compliance costs and other parts of the explanatory memorandum are comprehensive and comply with the methodology

• Statement is attached to the cabinet draft and is passed to Parliament and Bundesrat (representation of state governments): statement becomes public

• RCC shall not comment on the intended purposes and aims of regulations

• RCC reports to the chancellor annually; report is forwarded to Parliament

15 June 2016 || Seite 4BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |

© F

eder

al G

ove

rnem

t,

Th

om

as I

mo

Important institutions:Political Parties

Article 21 of the German Constitution:“(1) Political parties shall participate in the for-mation of the political will of the people. Theymay be freely establish-ed. Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. …”

Source: Article 21 of the German

Grundgesetz

Chairpersons of CDU, SPD, and CSU sign the„coalition agreement“ 16 December 2013 prior tobuilding a new government. The agreementdetermins usually most (in practice up to 90 per cent) of the government‘s legislative iniatives.


© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Ber

gman

n

Federal Statistical Office: centralservices for Better Regulation

• (public) databases formeasuring the successof the government‘sprogramme (legal obligation)

• Internal monitoring• Empirical validation

of compliance costs• Support of ministries

on request: ex ante and ex post evaluation

• Surveys on life events• Methodology

BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |15 June 2016 || Seite 9

© F

eder

al G

ov.

, Gü

ngö

r

© c

olo

urb

ox

© www.destatis.de

Constitutional court (2010): Principle of rationality of legislation

• Principle of rationality (derived from rule of law, Art. 20 (3), GG)

• Principle of trans-parency of procedure and results (derived from the principle of democracy, Art. 20 (1) & (2), and the right of public access, Art. 42 (1) first sentence, GG) Legislation must be based on evidence.


© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Rei

nek

e

Source: Hartz IV-ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 125, 175)

Administrationin Germany

• 16 states

• 11.000 municipalities

• numerous self-administrating bodies (e.g. social insurance)

• numerous chambers with compulsory membership carrying out public duties

© Bundesamt für Karthographie und Geodäsie


State Governments and municipa-lities: partners for Federal legislation

• State Governments areinvolved in Federal legislation formallyand informally;

• Umbrella organiza-tions of municipalitiesare treated as privilegedstakeholders;

• Chancellery hosts a working group withState Gov‘s and muni-cipalities since 2007;

• Costs of administrativesector are part of com-pliance costs


© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Ber

gman

n

Proof of concept: Does the Parliament pay attention?

Some measures re issueof compliance costs:• Part of the cover sheet• Table with statement

of NKR• Comprehensibility as

core criteria forquality of method

Some effects: c-costs are• … usually mentioned in

reports of committees• plenary speakers refer

to c-costs more often

BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | 15 June 2016 || Seite 13

© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Ku

gler

© Federal Government, Bergmann

© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Kö

hle

r

Source: OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, 2014, p. 34

Proof of concept: Evaluationcould focus on different issues

Have the good

practices been

implemented?

E.g. percentage of RIAs that comply with formal requirementse.g. quality ofpost-implementatio n reviews

• Regulatory system • Regulatory impacts• Other factors that influence outcome

Feedback loop

Input Process OutputIntermediate

outcome

Economic: Net benefits (possibly in comparison with counterfactual and alternatives)Efficient and streamlined: Compliance costs and burdens (possibly integrated into net benefits; Reduced enforcement costs) Perception of regulatory quality in general Improved compliance rate Transparent and easy to access

Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in a specific sector been achieved?

Effectiveness – market failure/problem/risk was solved or mitigated Protection and benefits of the public, responsive and accountable

Facts-based and perception based sector-specific indicators: ENVIRONMENTe.g. SOxandNOxemissions, concentration of airpollutants inurban areas SAFETY HEALTH

Regulatory outcomes

Set strategic objectives for

regulatory policy in general

Set strategic objectives for

regulatory policy in

specific sectors(e.g. Health,

Environment, Education)

Design Implementation Strategic outcome

I II III IV

easy hard

Are requirements

for good regulatory practices in

place?

E.g. requirements for objective-setting, consultation, evidence-based analysis, simplification, risk assessments (e.g. indicatorsof regulatory management type), aligning regulatory changes internationally

What resources are committed?

E.g. budget, staffing, expertise

Have good practices helped to

get quality regulation?

E.g. % of those involved in the regulatory process that think RIA has improved the quality of regulation as opposed to being a tick-the box-exercise; comparison of costs/benefits of initial regulatory proposal to those of actual regulation that was passed

V

Regulatory quality

Have strategic objectives for regulatory policy in general been achieved?


http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/governance/oecd-framework-for-regulatory-policy-evaluation_9789264214453-en#page36

Proof of concept: Experience of stakeholders?

On behalf of the Federal Government the Federal Statistical Office under-takes a bi-annual surveyon the perception of thequality of law and theadministration regarding32 life events for citizensand businesses.

First results (2015):• high overall satisfaction• top: no discrimination• flop: comprehensibility

BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |15 June 2016 || Seite 15

© F

eder

al G

ove

rnm

ent,

Ku

gler

© Dong-Ha Cho © Sebastian Bolesch

-1,16

0,60

0,13

2,00

2,00

2,00

0,85

1,62

1,32

-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Employment agency

Residents registration office

Overall

All respondents 25% with highest levels of satisfaction 25% with lowest levels of satisfaction Average across all situations/life events:

1.06

Overall satisfaction with perceivedquality of law and administration;here: life event „birth of a child“

Source: www.amtlich-einfach.de

http://www.amtlich-einfach.de/

Key elements of a new betterregulation culture

• Binding methods: e.g. estimating costs starts always with a single typical case

• Quality of data and processes: indepen-dent scrutiny, public databases, stake-holder involvement

• Monitoring allows to agree + control targets

• Political committment ©C

olo

urb

ox

©P

ress

e-u

nd

Info

rmat

ion

sam

td

erB

un

des

regi

erun

g


Contact

Thank you for your attention!

Federal ChancelleryBetter Regulation UnitWilly-Brandt-Str. 1D-10557 BerlinGERMANY

Stephan [email protected]. +49 (0) 30 18 400-1360

www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Issues/better-regulation/_node.htmlwww.amtlich-einfach.dehttps://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/BureaucracyCosts/BureaucracyCosts.html

http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Issues/better-regulation/_node.html


https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/BureaucracyCosts/BureaucracyCosts.html

Recommendation on RegulatoryPolicy and Governance

1. Central Coordination2. Participation3. Monitoring/Oversight4. Impact Assessment5. Stock Review/Evaluation6. Performance Review7. Accountability/Agencies8. Admin. + Judical Review9. Risk andRegulation10.Coherenceacross levels11.Sub-national Capacity12.International Regulatory

Co-operation

15 June 2016 || Seite 18

BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |

© Presse- und Informationsamt der BReg, Sandra Steins

Annex

Statistics ofBetter Regulation

Compliance costs rarely above1 Mio Euro or 100k hrs p.a.

Only a few drafts causecompliance costs ofmore than 1 Mio Euro or100,000 hrs p.a.

Regulations beyond thethreshhold are going toevaluated frequently.

Evaluation reports will be sent to independentadvisory board and tothe Federal Govern-ment‘s coordinator.Source: Federal Statistical Office

33

7

34

5

33

3

27

0

40

33

28

50

15 3

0

68

2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5

number of draftregulations (primary andsecondary legislation)

thereof: number of draftswith compliance costs > 1Mio. Euro p.a. or > 100khrs p.a.

thereof: number ofintended evaluations

15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | | Seite 20

„Red-tape-index“ for thebusiness sector declines

100,13

Änderung der Meldeverfahren in der Sozialversicherung (-125 Mio. Euro)

Umsetzung Bilanzrichtlinie (-87 Mio. Euro)

Umsetzung Elektroschrottrichtlinie (+83 Mio. Euro)

99,1Bürokratieentlastungsgesetz (-500 Mio. Euro)

Modernisierung Vergaberecht (-185 Mio. Euro)

Δ -1,03 Punkte

(ca. -450 Mio.€

pro Jahr)

FinanzanlagenvermittlerVONachmessung (+185 Mio. Euro)

15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | 21

The compliance costs „brake“Implementing „One in, one out“

„For every additional burden created by new regulatory proposals, an equivalent portion of the existing burden is removed. “

Few exemptions:• Adoption of EU-legis-

lation, treaties and court decisions

• Combatting substantial threats

Source: Council of Ministers 25 March 2015

©C

olo

urb

ox

15 June 2016 | slide 22BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework |

Compliance Costs ofAdministrative Sector as of 2012

Compliance costs of theadminsitrative sectorinclude costs of publicauthorities at federal, regional, municipallevel, and of self-administrative bodies.

Costs are under control, but raise slightly.

206 245

-199

24

794

283

809

357

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2012 2013 2014 2015

ongoing compliance costs administrative sector [Mio. Euro p.a.]

one-time compliance costs administrative sector [Mio. Euro]

Source: Federal Government, annual report on better regulation 2015

15 June 2016 |BK 133 SN | Institutional Framework | | Seite 23

Excel-tool ERBEX supports requestsre compliance costs of states/municip.


AnnexElderly care

“The Federal Government … wishes to reduce bureaucracy in the documentation requirements in care establishments ...More efficient documentation enables nursing staff to win back time for their primary duty of caring for patients. …“

Annual report of the Federal Governmentregarding better regulation 2014, page 17

Simplification of documentationrequirements in elderly care

• Focus of the project: age 65+, out of job, private or public in-surance, needs care

• 200 interviews withpeople, who need(permanent) care, operators, caringstaff, administration

• 940 sets of data• Care operators belong

to business sector• Care administration in

self-administratingbodies


© is

tock

Main results

Lorem ipsum dolor mis eceaquate niet qui dem si optatquas vellabore mo mollorepre dolupta-tur, omnihil ium quae. Que numquam exped quiatis enia nempor rere officab int.

Accaborro doloris estio ima doluptiis voluptatur.


Analyzed types of applications and procedures Compliance costs

in Mio. Euro p.a.

10 types of applications analysed 449

Determining care level (basic application) 110

reimbursement for consumables (3 types) 149

reimbursement of technical devices (3 types) 69

reimbursement for medical support (3 types) 122

Call for custodian of an adult person (age 65+) 0,09

Documentation requirements elderly care 2.700

Source: Federal Statistical Office

Detailed results fordocumentation requirements


29

25

121

364

290

1.856

48

0 500 1.000 1.500

Archiving of documents

Transmission of servicedocumentation

routine evaluation ofcaring plan

add ons to care report

notifications regardingcare report

fill-in servicedocumentation

set-up of documentationfor a single patient

in Mio. Euro p.a.

Source: Federal Statistical Office

Project partners: care persons shallbenefit from simplification

The simplified care-documentation developed with the project partners cuts red tape in care docu-mentation without preju-dicing professional stan-dards, jeopardisingquality or incurring liability risks. Instead of nurses having to complete pages of check-lists covering routine tasks, only deviations from basic routine care and treat-ment are documented.


© U

lf D

iete

r

Surveys on life events reflect on per-cieved quality of application procedures


Continue tomonitor

Investigate hiddenopportunities

Tacklechallenges

Keep up thegood work

satisfactionincorruptibility

non-discrimination

importance

helpfullness of staffwaitingtime

trust in authorityoverall duration of process

information on the varioussteps of the application process

information on what happens next

comprehensibility of forms

comprehensibility of the law

option of e-government

physical accessibilityaccess to necessary forms etc.

access to the competent office

expertise of staffopening hours

average

Source: www.amtlich-einfach.de; life event: need for care

© L

iesa

Jo

han

nse

n


institutional framework for regulatory policy in germany

Government & Nonprofit