With the exception of few comparative case studies, the literature on regulatory reform and regulatory impact analysis (RIA) tends to focus on internal political actors, activities, and processes. Furthermore, empirical analyses of new public management have overlooked the dynamics of communications among networks of administrative reformers. This article fills these gaps, presenting results of an event history analysis on the diffusion of RIA. It probes rationales for the origin of RIA and administrative capacity explanations in combination with variables referring to international and transnational communication channels of administrative reforms. A hypothesis based on legal origin is also tested. The findings show that the decision to adopt RIA rests on transnational networks as well as administrative variables such as government expenditure and legal origin.
AllioL. (2008). The emergence of better regulation in the European Union (Unpublished doctoral thesis). King’s College, London, UK.
2.
AnsellC.GingrichJ. (2003). Reforming the administrative state. In CainB. E.DaltonR. J.ScarrowS. E. (Eds.), Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 164-191). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BartlettR. V. (1989). Impact assessment as a policy strategy. In BartlettR. V. (Ed.), Policy through impact assessment: Institutionalized analysis as a policy strategy (pp. 1-4). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
4.
BearceD. H.BondanellaS. (2007). Intergovernmental organizations, socialization, and member-state interest convergence. International Organization, 61, 703-733.
5.
BeckN.KatzJ. N.TuckerR. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1260-1288.
6.
BennettC. J. (1997). Understanding the ripple effects: The cross-national adoption of policy instruments for bureaucratic accountability. Governance, 10, 213-233.
7.
BerryF. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54, 322-330.
8.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
9.
BoyneG. A.Gould-WilliamsJ. S.LawJ.WalkerR. M. (2005). Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 419-435.
10.
BuckleyJ.WesterlandC. (2004). Duration standard errors: Improving EHA models of state policy diffusion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4, 94-113.
11.
CarterD. B.SignorinoC. S. (2010). Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis, 18, 271-292.
12.
CasseseS. (2003). The age of administrative reforms. In HaywardJ.MenonA. (Eds.), Governing Europe (pp. 128-139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
CasseseS.SavinoM. (2005, May). The global economy accountable governance, and administrative reform. Paper presented at the 6th Global Forum on Reinventing Government: Toward Participatory and Transparent Governance, Seoul, Korea.
14.
CheckelJ. T. (1999). Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 84-114.
15.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.). (2001). The new public management: The transformation of ideas and practices. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
16.
DeLisleJ. (1999). Lex Americana? United States legal assistance, American legal models, and legal change in the post-communist world and beyond. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 20, 179-308.
17.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
18.
DobbinF. R.EdelmanL.MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R.SwidlerA. (1988). The expansion of due process in organizations. In ZuckerL. G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 71-98). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
19.
DobbinF.SimmonsB. A.GarrettG. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning?Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449-472.
20.
DroriG. S.JangY. S.MeyerJ. W. (2006). Sources of rationalized governance: Cross-national longitudinal analyses, 1985-2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 205-229.
21.
European Commission. (2002, June5). Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment (COM(2002)276 final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
22.
FinnemoreM. (1993). International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and science policy. International Organization, 47, 565-597.
23.
FrumkinP.GalaskiewiczJ. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 283-307.
24.
GarrettG. (1995). Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy. International Organization, 49, 657-687.
25.
GarrettG. (1998). Global markets and national politics: Collision course or virtuous circle?International Organization, 52, 787-824.
26.
GleditschK. S.WardM. D. (2001). Measuring space: A minimum-distance database and applications to international studies. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 739-758.
27.
GowJ. I.DufourC. (2000). Is the new public management a paradigm? Does it matter?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 573-597.
28.
GrigorescuA. (2003). International organizations and government transparency: Linking the international and domestic realms. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 643-667.
29.
HesseJ. J.HoodC.PetersB. G. (Eds.). (2003). Paradoxes of public sector reform: Soft theory and hard cases. Berlin, Germany: Duncker and Humblot.
30.
HironakaA. (2002). The globalization of environmental protection: The case of environmental impact assessment. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43, 65-78.
31.
HoodC. (1995). Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm?Public Policy and Administration, 10, 104-117.
32.
HoodC.PetersG. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 267-282.
33.
JacobsS. H. (2006). Regulatory impact Analysis in regulatory process, method, and co-operation (Policy Research Initiative Working Paper Series 26). Ottawa: Government of Canada.
34.
JacobzoneS.BoundsG.ChoiC. W.MiguetC. (2007). Regulatory management systems across OECD countries: Indicators of recent achievements and challenges (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 2007/7). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
35.
JacobzoneS.ChoiC.-W.MiguetC. (2007). Indicators of regulatory management system (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 2007/4). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
36.
JahnD. (2006). Globalization as “Galton’s problem”: The missing link in the analysis of diffusion patterns in welfare state development. International Organization, 60, 401-431.
37.
JohnstonJ. S. (2002). A game theoretic analysis of alternative institutions for regulatory cost-benefit analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 1343-1429.
38.
JonesL. R.KettlD. F. (2003). Assessing public management reform in an international context. International Public Management Review, 4, 1-19.
39.
KaganR. A. (1991). Adversarial legalism and American government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, 369-406.
40.
KarmackE. (2004). Government innovations around the world (John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Papers Series). Washington, DC: John F. Kennedy School of Government.
41.
KelemenR. D. (2006). Suing for Europe: Adversarial legalism and European governance. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 101-127.
42.
KelemenR. D. (2010, September). The rise of adversarial legalism in Europe. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada.
43.
KelemenR. D.SibbittE. C. (2004). The globalization of American law. International Organization, 58, 103-136.
44.
KingG.ZengL. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137-163.
45.
KirkpatrickC.ParkerD. (2004). Regulatory impact assessment and regulatory governance in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 24, 333-344.
46.
KirkpatrickC.ParkerD.ZhangY.-F. (2004). Regulatory impact assessment in developing and transition economies: A survey of current practice. Public Money & Management, 24, 291-296.
47.
KnokeD. (1982). The spread of municipal reform: Temporal, spatial, and social dynamics. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1314-1339.
48.
LangnerI.BenderR.Lenz-TonjesR.KuchenhoffH.BlettnerM. (2003). Bias of maximum-likelihood estimates in logistic and Cox regression models: A comparative simulation study (Discussion Paper No. 362). Munich, Germany: Collaborative Research Center386.
49.
La PortaR.de SilanesF. L.ShleiferA.VishnyR. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 15, 222-279.
50.
LeeC. K.StrangD. (2006). The international diffusion of public-sector downsizing: Network emulation and theory-driven learning. International Organization, 60, 883-909.
51.
LynnL. E. J. (2001). Globalization and administrative reform: What is happening in theory?Public Management Review, 3, 191-208.
52.
MahajanV.PetersonR. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
53.
MahonR.McBrideS. (2009). Standardizing and disseminating knowledge: The role of the OECD in global governance. European Political Science Review, 1, 83-101.
54.
MarchJ. G.OlsonJ. P. (1983). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77, 281-296.
55.
McGarityT. O. (1991). Reinventing rationality: The role of regulatory analysis in the federal bureaucracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
MeirA. (1982). A spatial-humanistic perspective of innovation diffusion processes. Geoforum, 13, 57-68.
57.
MeyerJ. W.BoliJ.ThomasG. M.RamirezF. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144-181.
58.
MooneyC. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 103-124.
59.
MossbergerK. (2000). The politics of ideas and the spread of enterprise zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
60.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1995). Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on improving the quality of government regulation. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
61.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997a). Assessing the impact of proposed laws and regulations (SIGMA Paper No. 13). Paris, France: Author.
62.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997b). Checklist on law drafting and regulatory management in Central and Eastern Europe (SIGMA Paper No. 15). Paris, France: SIGMA.
63.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997c). Law drafting and regulatory management in Central and Eastern Europe (SIGMA Paper No. 18). Paris, France: SIGMA.
64.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Regulatory Policy Committee. (2009). Indicators of regulatory management systems. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
65.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume.
66.
PageE. C. (2003). Europeanization and the persistence of administrative systems. In HaywardJ.MenonA. (Eds.), Governing Europe (pp. 162-177). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
PetersB. G. (1992). Government reorganization: A theoretical analysis. International Political Science Review/Revue internationale de science politique, 13, 199-217.
68.
PetersB. G. (1997). Policy transfers between governments: The case of administrative reforms. West European Politics, 20, 71-88.
69.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
70.
PosnerE. A. (2001). Controlling agencies with cost-benefit analysis: A positive political theory perspective. University of Chicago Law Review, 68, 1137-1199.
71.
PowerM. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
RadaelliC. M. (Ed.). (2001). L’analisi di impatto della regolazione in prospettiva comparata [Regulatory impact analysis in comparative perspective]. Soveria Mannelli, Italy: Rubbettino.
73.
RadaelliC. M. (2007). Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda?Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 190-207.
74.
RadaelliC. M.MeuweseA. C. (2009). Better regulation in Europe: Between management and regulation. Public Administration, 87, 639-654.
75.
RendaA. (2006). Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for European Policy Studies.
76.
ReynoldsT. H.FloresA. A. (2000). Foreign law guide: Current sources of codes and basic legislation in jurisdictions of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
77.
SadlerB. (1996). Environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment.
78.
Sahlin-AnderssonK. (2001). National, international and transnational constructions of new public management. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), New public management the transformation of ideas and practice (p. 43-72). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
79.
Sahlin-AnderssonK.EngwallL. (Eds.). (2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows, and sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
80.
ShapiroS. (2005). Unequal partners: Cost-benefit analysis and executive review of regulations. Environmental Law Reporter, 35, 10433-10444.
81.
SimmonsB. A.ElkinsZ. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98, 171-189.
82.
StrangD.MeyerJ. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487-511.
83.
SunsteinC. R. (2002). The cost-benefit state: The future of regulatory protection. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
84.
TolbertP. S.ZuckerL. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22-39.
85.
WeinerJ. B. (2006). Better regulation in Europe. Current Legal Problems, 59, 447-518.
86.
WelchE. W.WongW. (2001). Effects of global pressures on public bureaucracy: Modeling a new theoretical framework. Administration Society, 33, 371-402.
