In this paper we attempt to analyse the independence of five Belgian regulatory agencies. In the theoretical part we cover the existing literature and find that independence is frequently used as a proxy for credibility. In the empirical part we use the framework constructed by Johannsen (2004) to measure the independence of Belgian regulatory agencies. In this framework four aspects of independence are identified and quantified leading to an overall independence index. Using legal analysis this framework is applied to the Belgian situation. We find that the independence of the Belgian financial regulator is very high, while the railway regulator is lacking most features of independence. The other regulators' score (the competition authority, the energy and telecommunications regulators) is somewhere in between. The overall picture is one of inconsistency.
CoenD. & ThatcherM. (2005) “The New Governance of Markets and Non-Majoritarian Regulators”, Governance, Volume 18Issue 3, 329.
2.
Commission of the European Communities (2004) Annex to the European Electronic Communications Regulation and Markets (10thReport), Commission Staff Working Paper, COM(2004)759 final, Brussels, 2.12.2004.
3.
ECTA, Jones Day & SPC Network (2005) Regulatory scorecard. Report on the relative effectiveness of the regulatory frameworks for electronic communications in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, 1st December 2005 (updated 27th April 2006).
4.
GenoudC. (2003) Toward a content and contextual approach of delegation, or “how and why should we open the regulation black box”, ECPR Joint Session 2003 “Delegation in Contemporary Democracies”, Edinburgh, March 28th – April 2nd.
5.
GilardiF. (2002) “Policy Credibility and Delegation of Regulatory Competencies to Independent Agencies: A Comparative Empirical Consideration”, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 9, Number 6, 1 December, pp. 873–893(21).
6.
GilardiF. (2004) “Institutional Change in Regulatory Policies: Regulation through Independent Agencies and the Three New Institutionalisms”, in: JordanaJ. & Levi-FaurD. (eds), The Politics of Regulation: Examining Regulatory Institutions and Instruments in the Age of Governance, Edward Elgar and the CRC Series on Regulation, the University of Manchester.
7.
GilardiF. (2006) The same, but different. Central banks, regulatory agencies and the politics of delegation to independent authorities, Political Science Working Paper Series, Université de Lausanne, No. 25.
8.
IMF (2006) Belgium: Financial System Stability Assessment, including Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes on the following topics: Banking Supervision, Securities Regulation, Insurance Supervision and Regulation, and Securities Settlement Systems, IMF Country Report No. 06/75.
9.
JohannsenK.S. (2003) Regulatory Independence in Theory and Practice. A Survey of Independent Energy Regulators in Eight European countries, AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen.
10.
JohannsenK.S.PedersenL.H. & SørensenE.M. (2004) Independent Regulatory Authorities – a Comparative Study of European Energy Regulators. AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen.
11.
KeeferP. & StasavageD. (1998) “When does Delegation Improve Credibility? Central Bank Independence and the Separation of Powers”, WPS/98-18.
12.
KydlandF.E. & PrescottE.C. (1977) “Rules Rather than Discretion: The inconsistency of Optimal Plans”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 73–491.
13.
LarsenA.PedersenL.H.SørensenE.M. & OlsenO.J. (2006) “Independent Regulatory Authorities in European Electricity Markets”, Energy Policy, Vol. 34, No. 17, November, pp. 2858–2870.
14.
MaggettiM. (2007) “De Facto Independence after Delegation: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 1, 271–294.
15.
MajoneG. (1996) Regulating Europe, Routledge, London and New York.
16.
MajoneG. (1997) “Independent Agencies and the Delegation Problem: Theoretical and Normative Dimensions”, in: SteuenbergBernard and Van Vught (eds.), Political Institutions and Public Policy, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 139–156.
17.
NaertF. (2006) “Een politiek-economische evaluatie van het Belgisch mededingingsbeleid”, Kwartaalschrift Economie, 3, Vol. 3, October.
18.
OECD (2002) Restructuring Public Utilities for Competition, Policy Brief, February.
19.
OECD (2005) Bringing Competition to Regulated Industries, DAF/COMPGF(2005)1.
20.
OliveiraG.MachadoE.L.NovaesL.M. & FerreiraGuimaraes C.B. (2005) Aspects of the Independence of Regulatory Agencies and Competition Advocacy, International Competition Network, Competition Policy Implementation Working Group, Subgroup 3, Competition Advocacy in Regulated Sectors, May, at 6.
21.
PedersenL. & SørensenE. (2004) Transfer and Transformation in process of Europeanization EGPA 2004 Annual Conference, September.
22.
QuintynM. & TaylorM.W. (2003), “Regulatory and Supervisory Independence and Financial Stability”, in: CESifo Economics Studies, Vol. 49, 2/2003, p. 259–294.
23.
ScherpJ. (2005) Rail (de-)regulation in EU Member States and the Future of European Rail, CESifo/DICE report 4/2005.
SpyrelliC. (2004) “Regulating the regulators? An assessment of institutional structures and procedural rules of national regulatory authorities”, International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, Issue 8, Winter 2003/2004.
26.
StiglerG. (1971) “The theory of economic regulation”, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2 (spring) 1971: 3–21.
27.
ThatcherM. (1998) “Institutions, Regulation and change: New Regulatory Agencies in the British Privatized Utilities”, West European Politics, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 120–127.
28.
ThatcherM. (2001) “The Commission and National Governments as Partners: EC Regulatory Expansion in Telecommunications 1979–2000”, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, no. 4, pp. 558–584.
29.
WuI. (2004) Traits of an Independent Communications Regulator: A Search for Indicators, FCC International Bureau Working Paper Series.
