Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of evaluating a regulatory system is to enable governments to improve the ways in which they function, regulate, and prioritize attention and resources to the system as a whole. Academic and professional literatures provide useful principles with which to proceed. However, off-the-shelf methods for assessing regulatory systems with generic characteristics are scarce. The Regulatory System Scan and Assessment methodology was designed for this purpose and applied to the current regulatory framework that governs Israel’s actions to plan—mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover—from the damage which may be caused by a severe earthquake. Although there is oftentimes widespread agreement concerning the existence of problems in a regulatory system, there is rarely consensus or a thorough understanding of what those problems are. Only when problems are identified can policy makers create viable and effective solutions. Development of the Regulatory System Scan and Assessment is a step toward addressing this challenge.

Keywords

complex regulatory systems disruptive frictions and gaps earthquake planning regulatory impact analysis regulatory system evaluation stakeholder and expert opinion-embedded methodology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adam

de Savigny

(2012) Systems thinking for strengthening health systems in LMICs: Need for a paradigm shift. Health Policy Planning 27(Suppl. 4): iv1–3.

Allen

Baer

Clinton

et al . (2012) Earthquake early warning for Israel: Recommended implementation strategy. Israel Geological Survey Report GSI/26/2012; Report 500/676/12. Lod: The Geophysical Institute.

Arndt

Baker

Querbach

et al . (2015) 2015 indicators of regulatory policy and governance: Design, methodology and key results. OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 1. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrnwqm3zp43-en

Blackstone

Hakim

Meehan

(2017) A regional, market oriented governance for disaster management: A new planning approach. Evaluation and Program Planning 64: 57–68.

Boin

Lagadec

(2000) Preparing for the future: Critical challenges in crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 8(4): 185–91.

Brown

Stern

Tenenbaum

et al . (2006) Handbook for Evaluating Infrastructure Regulatory Systems. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Cecot

Hahn

Renda

et al . (2008) An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU. Regulation and Governance 2(4): 405–24.

De Savigny

Adam

(2009) Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening (Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Dunlop

Maggetti

Radaelli

et al . (2012) The many uses of Regulatory Impact Assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation & Governance 6(1): 23–45.

10.

Fritsch

Radaelli

Schrefler

et al . (2013) Comparing the content of Regulatory Impact Assessments in the UK and the EU. Public Money & Management 33(6): 445–52.

11.

Hertin

Jacob

Pesch

et al . (2009) The production and use of knowledge in Regulatory Impact Assessment—An empirical analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5): 413–21.

12.

IMF and The World Bank (2015) Bulgaria: Financial Sector Assessment Program—Detailed assessment of observance. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/10/26/090224b08316e83e/3_0/Rendered/PDF/Bulgaria000Det00banking0supervision.pdf

13.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (2014) Natural Disasters in the Middle East and North Africa: A Regional Overview. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

14.

Koop

Lodge

(2015) What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis. Regulation and Governance 11(1): 95–108.

15.

Levi-Faur

(2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 598: 12–32.

16.

Levi-Faur

(2011) Regulatory networks and regulatory agencification: Towards a Single European Regulatory Space. Journal of European Public Policy 18(6): 808–27.

17.

Lobel

(2004) The renew deal: The fall of regulation and the rise in governance in contemporary legal thought. Minnesota Law Review 89: 342–470.

18.

Lobel

(2012) New governance as regulatory governance. In: Levi-Faur

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook on Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–82.

19.

Lofstedt

(2007) The “Plateau-ing” of the European better regulation agenda: An analysis of activities carried out by the Barroso Commission. Journal of Risk Research 10(4): 423–47.

20.

Lundin

Öberg

(2014) Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making. Policy Sciences 47(1): 25–49.

21.

May

(2007) Regulatory regimes and accountability. Regulation and Governance 1(1): 8–26.

22.

Meuwese

(2008) Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

23.

Meuwese

van Voorst

(2016) Regulatory Impact Assessment in legal studies. In: Dunlop

Radaelli

(eds) Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 21–32.

24.

Montpetit

(2008) Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s Biotechnology Sector. Public Administration 86(1): 259–77.

25.

National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness (NSCEP)—Prime Minister’s Office (2011) A Framework for Preparedness for Destructive Earthquakes in Israel. Jerusalem: NSCEP.

26.

Nieminen

Hyytinen

(2015) Future-oriented impact assessment: Supporting strategic decision-making in complex socio-technical environments. Evaluation 21(4): 448–61.

27.

O’Brien

(2008) UK emergency preparedness: A holistic response? Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 17(2): 232–43.

28.

OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Paris: OECD.

29.

OECD (2010) Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems (MAPS). Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/45181522.pdf

30.

OECD (2014) OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation. Regulatory Indicators Survey Results, Measuring Regulatory Performance. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm (accessed 4 April 2017).

31.

Ouchi

(2004) A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3201. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2004/04/15/000009486_20040415130301/additional/115515322_20041117173031.pdf

32.

Perrow

(1999) Organizing to reduce the vulnerabilities of complexity. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 7(3): 150–5.

33.

Radaelli

(2009a) Desperately seeking Regulatory Impact Assessment: Diary of a reflective researcher. Evaluation 15(1): 31–48.

34.

Radaelli

(2009b) Measuring policy learning: Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 16(8): 1145–64.

35.

Radaelli

Fritsch

(2012) Measuring regulatory performance: Evaluating regulatory management tools and programmes. Expert Paper No. 2. Paris: OECD.

36.

Radej

(2011) Synthesis in Policy Impact Assessment. Evaluation 17(2): 133–50.

37.

Renda

(2011) Law and Economics in the RIA World: Improving the Use of Economic Analysis in Public Policy and Legislation. Cambridge: Intersentia.

38.

Sager

Rissi

(2011) The limited scope of policy appraisal in the context of referendum democracy - the case of regulatory impact assessment in Switzerland. Evaluation 17(2): 151–164.

39.

Segal

Negev

Feitelson

et al . (2017) Devising ‘policy packages’ for seismic retrofitting of residences. Natural Hazards 89(1): 497–519.

40.

Sheikh

Saligram

Prasad

(2013) Mapping the regulatory architecture for health care delivery in mixed health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Finance Knowledge Hub, 26.

41.

The World Bank (2016) Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP). Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/financial-sector-assessment-program#1

42.

UNISDR (2014) Arab region synthesis report: consultations on the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction. Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/42736

43.

UNISDR (2015) Implementing the Hyogo framework for action in the Arab region - Regional Synthesis Report 2005-2015. Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/42725

44.

United Kingdom Treasury (2003) The Green Book Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government: Treasury Guidance. Norwich: TSO.

45.

Weiner

(2006) Better regulation in Europe. Current Legal Problems 59(1): 447–518.

46.

Williamson

(1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Macmillan.

47.

Zohar

Salamon

Rubin

(2016) Reappraised list of historical earthquakes in Israel and its close surroundings. Journal of Seismology 20(3): 971–85.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

How can regulatory systems be assessed? The case of earthquake preparedness in Israel

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material