Despite the criticism levelled at it, New Public Management (NPM) seems to be enduring. Post-NPM initiatives remain relatively theoretical and are slow to take root at the heart of the governmental apparatus. Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), a tool for decision-making at national level, seems to be providing new answers. IIA has developed from NPM regulatory relief initiatives, but its objectives and effects are more in line with post-NPM principles. This article aims to explore the concept of IIA, its development and the implications of its institutionalization. A comparative analysis of IIA practice is carried out for four approaches: three at the national level (France, United Kingdom and Switzerland) and one at the supranational level (European Commission). IIA appears as a hybrid NPM and post-NPM tool, the use of which allows the implementation of certain post-NPM principles. The article concludes on future avenues for research.
Points for practitioners
Administrations often have to deal with issues related to evidence-based decision-making, transparency and the proliferation of statutory sectoral impact assessments. In a context of limited resources, Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) can be an attractive solution. However, a careful analysis of its development makes it possible to better understand what its institutionalization actually implies. The practice of IIA makes it possible to systematize consultation with stakeholders, but varies according to the methods used and the administrative structures in place. IIA could serve as a decision-making tool that adds a public interest component and better reflect public values in a decision-making situation.
AchtnichtMRenningsKHertinJ (2009) Experiences with integrated impact assessment: Empirical evidence from a survey in three European member states. Environmental Policy and Governance19: 321–335.
2.
ARE (Office fédéral du développement territorial) (2004) Evaluation de la durabilité: Conception générale et bases méthodologiques, Berne: Département fédéral de l'environnement dt, de l’énergie et de la communication (DETEC).
3.
ArndtCBakerACQuerbachTSchultzR (2015) 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance: Design, Methodology and Key Results, Paris: OECD Publishing.
4.
AucoinP (1990) Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance3: 115–137.
5.
BäcklundA-K (2009) Impact assessment in the European Commission: A system with multiple objectives. Environmental Science & Policy12: 1077–1087.
6.
BondRCurranJKirkpatrickCLeeNFranicP (2001) Integrated impact assessment for sustainable development: A case study approach. World Development29: 1011–1024.
7.
BouckaertGPetersBGVerhoestK (2010) The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management, New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
8.
BozemanB (2007) Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
9.
Christensen T and Fan Y (2016) Post-New Public Management: A new administrative paradigm for China? International Review of Administrative Sciences. Early view.
10.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2011a) Complexity and hybrid public administration—Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review11: 407–423.
11.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2011b) Democracy and administrative policy: Contrasting elements of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM. European Political Science Review3: 125–146.
12.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2012a) Administrative reforms in Western democraties. In: PetersBGPierreJ (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 577–589.
13.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2012b) Competing principles of agency organization: The reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences78: 579–596.
14.
ChristensenTLægreidPWiseLR (2002) Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration80: 153–178.
15.
DBIS (2011) Impact Assessment Guidance, London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills.
16.
DBIS (2014) Primary Authority: A Guide for Officials, London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills.
17.
DBIS (2015) Better Regulation Framework Manual: Practical Guidance for UK Government Officials, London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills.
18.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60: 549–559.
19.
DenisJ-Lvan GestelNFerlieEB (2015) Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration93: 273–289.
20.
DunleavyPMargettsHBastowSTinklerJ (2006) New Public Management is dead: Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16: 467–494.
21.
DunlopCAFritschORadaelliCM (2014) Étudier l’étude d’impact. Revue française d’administration publique1: 163–178.
22.
Ecoplan (2008) Évaluation de la durabilité: Guide pratique pour les services fédéraux et autres intéressés. ARE: Office fédéral du développement territorial and DETEC: Département fédéral de l’environnement des transports de l’énergie et de la communication.
23.
EmeryYGiauqueD (2014) The hybrid universe of public administration in the 21st century. International Review of Administrative Sciences80: 23–32.
24.
European Commission (2009) Impact Assessment Guidelines, Brussels: European Commission.
25.
European Commission (2011) Commission Staff Working Paper: Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments, Brussels: European Commission.
26.
European Commission (2012a) Commission Staff Working Document: Operational Guidance for Assessing Impacts on Sectoral Competitiveness within the Commission Impact Assessment System: A ‘Competitiveness Proofing’ Toolkit for use in Impact Assessments, Brussels: European Commission.
27.
European Commission (2012b) Impact Assessment Board Report for 2011, Brussels: European Commission.
Fife IIA Group (2009) Integrated Impact Assessment Toolkit, Fife: Fife Council and NHS Fife.
33.
GrossiGThomassonA (2015) Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: The case of Copenhagen Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences81: 604–620.
34.
HertinJJacobKPeschUPacchiC (2009) The production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment: An empirical analysis. Forest Policy and Economics11: 413–421.
35.
Hertin J, Jordan A, Nilsson M, Nykvist B, Russel D and Turnpenny J (2007) The practice of policy assessment in Europe: An institutional and political analysis. In: Hertin J, Jordan A, Nilsson M, Nykvist B, Russel D and Turnpenny J, The practice of policy assessment in Europe: An institutional and political analysis. Working papers, 6. EC, FP6 project MATISSE (Methods and Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment). Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
36.
HM Treasury (2003 & 2011) The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, London: Stationery Office.
37.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69: 3–19.
KirkpatrickCParkerD (2004) Regulatory impact assessment and regulatory governance in developing countries. Public Adminintration and Development24: 333–344.
40.
KletzFHénautLSardasJ-C (2014) New Public Management and the professions within cultural organizations: One hybridization may hide another. International Review of Administrative Sciences80: 89–109.
41.
KolltveitK (2015) Le renforcement du centre de l’exécutif: Expliquer le changement autrement que par le NMP. International Review of Administrative Sciences81: 21–40.
42.
Légifrance (2007) Guide de légistique, 2nd edn. Paris: Documentation française.
43.
McCaigK (2005) Canadian insights: The challenges of an integrated environmental assessment framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review25: 737–746.
44.
MeierKJO’TooleLJJ (2009) The proverbs of New Public Management: Lessons from an evidence-based research agenda. American Review of Public Administration39: 4–22.
45.
MilnerSJBaileyCDeansJPettigrewD (2005) Integrated impact assessment in the UK: Use, efficacy and future development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review25: 47–61.
46.
MindellJBowenCHerriotNFindlayGAtkinsonS (2010) Institutionalizing health impact assessment in London as a public health tool for increasing synergy between policies in other areas. Public Health124: 107–114.
47.
Ministère des affaires étrangères (2013) Étude d’impact sur le Projet de Loi autorisant l’approbation de l’accord entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Gouvernement de la République italienne pour la réalisation et l’exploitation d’une nouvelle ligne ferroviaire Lyon-Turin. France.
48.
Morrison-SaundersAPopeJGunnJABondARetiefF (2014) Strengthening impact assessment: A call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal32: 2–8.
49.
MoultonS (2009) Putting together the publicness puzzle: A framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review69: 889–900.
50.
NegevMLevineHDavidovitchNBhatiaRMindellJ (2012) Integration of health and environment through health impact assessment: Cases from three continents. Environmental Research114: 60–67.
51.
OCDE (2010) Mieux légiférer en Europe: France, Paris: OCDE.
52.
OECD (1997) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries, Paris: OECD.
53.
OECD (2010) Guidance on Sustainability Impact Assessment, Paris: OECD.
54.
OECD (2015a) Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, Paris: OECD.
55.
OECD (2015b) OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, Paris: OECD.
56.
O’FlynnJ (2007) From New Public Management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration66: 353–366.
57.
OsborneSP (2006) The new public governance?Public Management Review8: 377–387.
58.
ParkHMPerryJL (2013) The transformation of governance: Who are the new public servants and what difference does it make for democratic governance?American Review of Public Administration43: 26–49.
59.
ParkSMJoaquinME (2012) Of alternating waves and shifting shores: The configuration of reform values in the US federal bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences78: 514–536.
60.
PerryJL (2007) Democracy and the new public service. American Review of Public Administration37: 3–16.
61.
PetersBGPierreJ (1998) Governance without goverment? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8: 223–243.
RadaelliCM (2004) The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis: Best practice or lesson-drawing?European Journal of Political Research43: 723–747.
64.
RadaelliCMMeuweseACM (2009) Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration87: 639–654.
65.
RendaA (2006) Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
66.
SchedlerK (2003) Local and regional public management reforms in Switzerland. Public Administration81: 325–344.
67.
Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement (SGG) (2011) Lignes directrices pour l'élaboration des études d'impact, Paris: SGG.
68.
ShafritzJMHydeAC (2012) Classics of Public Administration, 7th edn, Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
69.
ShapiroSMorrallJ (2016) Does haste make waste? How long does it take to do a good regulatory impact analysis?Administration & Society48: 367–389.
70.
SSBERF (2008) 1st July 2007 to 31st March 2008, 28th (Regulatory) Impact Assessment Command Paper. In: Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ed.). London: The Stationery Office.
71.
St-PierreLMarchandJ-S (2014a) Integrated Impact Assessment: Main Challenges and Issues Tied to IIA, Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
72.
St-PierreLMarchandJ-S (2014b) Integrated Impact Assessment: Overall Situation and Clarification of Concepts, Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
73.
St-PierreLMarchandJ-S (2014c) Series on Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) 2: Example of the Practice of IIA at the European Commission, Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
74.
St-PierreLMarchandJ-S (2014d) Series on Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) 3: Example of the Practice of IIA in France, Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
75.
St-PierreLMarchandJ-S (2014e) Series on Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) 4: Example of the Practice of IIA in the United Kingdom, Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
76.
StokerG (2006) Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?American Review of Public Administration36: 41–57.
77.
The National Performance Review (1993) From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
78.
ThompsonJR (2012) Labor–managment relations and partnerships: Were they reinvented? In: PetersBGPierreJ (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage Publications, pp. 130–148.
79.
VanclayF (2003) SIA principles: International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal21: 5–11.
80.
WalkerRMBrewerGABoyneGAAvellanedaCN (2011) Market orientation and public service performance: New Public Management gone mad?Public Administration Review71: 707–717.
81.
ZhangY-F (2010) Toward better regulatory governance? Regulatory reform in selected developing countries, 2003–7. Public Management Review12: 874–891.
