Evidence-informed policymaking has emerged as a cornerstone of governance reform efforts in Uzbekistan. This chapter explores the intersection of evidence-informed policymaking and regulatory quality in the country, emphasising their close-knit relationship. It explores recent advancements the country has made in its regulatory impact assessment (RIA) framework, the management of ex post reviews of regulations, and stakeholder engagement to ensure robust policy outcomes.
OECD Public Governance Reviews: Uzbekistan
Towards a More Modern, Effective and Strategic Public Administration
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Abstract
Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) stands as a crucial process in the realm of public policy. As understood by the OECD, EIPM is a process whereby sources of information–including statistics, data or available published research–are consulted before making a decision to design, implement and/or alter policies, interventions, programmes (OECD, 2020[1]).
Regulations, alongside taxation and spending, represent one of the most important tools governments possess to achieve their goals. The principles underlying EIPM closely align with those supporting regulatory policy. Regulatory policy aims to achieve government objectives using regulations, laws, and other ways of influencing the behaviour of regulated subjects to deliver better economic and social outcomes, thereby enhancing the lives of citizens and businesses. It systematically employs evidence-informed tools and stakeholder participation to advance the design and review of laws. Regulatory impact assessment (RIA), as one of the most significant regulatory management tools, uses evidence to measure the impacts and consequences of various regulatory and non-regulatory options. It helps substantiate decisions on when governments should intervene using regulations or when the costs of such intervention are too high relative to the potential benefits. Ex post reviews, on the other hand, entail systematic reviews of the stock of regulation against clearly defined policy goals. They include consideration of the costs and benefits of regulations in practice to ensure they remain up to date, cost-justified, effective, consistent, and deliver the intended policy objectives.
Following a request from the Government of Uzbekistan, this chapter focuses on implementing regulatory policy principles in Uzbekistan, namely regulatory impact assessment, ex post reviews of the existing stock of regulations, and stakeholder engagement to illustrate how EIPM is implemented in general. However, conclusions from this chapter are generally applicable to other disciplines of EIPM as well.
In recent years, the Government of Uzbekistan has demonstrated noteworthy progress in establishing a framework for evidence-informed regulation. High-level government commitment to good regulatory practices (GRPs) is evident in various policymaking documents, reflecting an increasing momentum towards fostering a "smarter" and more participatory approach to law-making in the country.
However, a critical question remains: Have these policies translated into effective practice? This chapter aims to offer an overview of the recent developments the country has undertaken to enhance its regulatory policymaking framework and assess whether these practices have manifested into reality. The effectiveness of such policies extends beyond mere intentions; it hinges on the alignment of institutions, resources, and access to information. It additionally depends on the effective use of regulatory tools and methodologies. Thereby, this chapter will be segmented into two parts. The first part will look at the basic framework the government has put into place to strengthen evidence-informed regulatory policy, while the second will dig deeper into the use of regulatory tools and into the elements of what it means to develop evidence-informed regulations. The chapter will put into context OECD best practices for guiding and reinforcing GRPs in Uzbekistan, where applicable.
Political support is the cornerstone for advancing principles of evidence-informed regulations. It provides top-down signalling to civil servants, businesses and the broader public that evidence in policymaking is key and that all parties should work together to gather better data, engage with stakeholders and ensure that ideas are tested for best informed regulatory policymaking (OECD, 2023[2]). Without political support, policymakers will not be incentivised to adopt EIPM principles and contribute to an open and transparent regulatory development landscape. The first principle of the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012 OECD Recommendation) states that commitment at the highest political level should be made for adopting an explicit whole-of-government policy for ensuring regulatory quality (OECD, 2012[3])
Since 2008, the Republic of Uzbekistan has implemented substantial reforms to enhance its regulatory policymaking landscape
Notably, between 2008 and 2014, the country initiated significant advancements that laid the foundation for a regulatory quality framework. A major milestone was achieved in 2014 when Uzbekistan institutionalised the use of RIA for economic impact assessments on business activities. The administration also worked closely with international partners, such as UNDP, to reinforce its regulatory landscape (UNDP, n.d.[4]).
More recently, however, the Republic of Uzbekistan has undertaken more significant reforms to enhance its landscape for improved regulations. In 2018, with the acknowledgement of Presidential Decree No. 55051, the government understood that the existing laws, regulations, and associated processes did not adequately meet societal needs. In realising this, it kickstarted a second wave of substantial reforms for regulatory advancements within the country (OSCE, 2019[5]).
The first notable development to emerge from this second wave occurred in 2020 with the adoption of Presidential Decree No. PF-60752. This decree introduced a system of RIA to Uzbekistan and marked the initial steps in defining the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) as the regulatory oversight body for the administration. Shortly thereafter, in 2021, Uzbekistan adopted a second Presidential Decree, No. RP-50253, which advanced the guidelines for using regulatory impact assessments within the country. Today, RP-5025 serves as the whole-of-government better regulation strategy for the administration. The application of RIA has also been reinforced in Uzbekistan's new Law on Normative Legal Acts (ZRU-682)4, positioning it as a core component of preparing new normative legal acts.
Multiple legislative plans exist which challenge the landscape for regulatory coherency in Uzbekistan
The primary document governing the creation of new normative legal acts in Uzbekistan is ZRU-682. Chapter 3 of ZRU-682, titled "Planning, Initiation, and Preparation of Draft Normative Legal Acts", mandates that drafting regulatory legal acts can only occur within the framework of established plans or programs of normative work. Additionally, Article 20 of ZRU-682 stipulates that a new normative legal act may only be adopted if no existing legal mechanism can achieve the same governmental objective. Essentially, this provision ensures that new legislative actions are only taken when there is a clear gap in the current legal framework5.
While these provisions reflect a thoughtful approach to regulatory practices in Uzbekistan, challenges remain in maintaining regulatory coherency. Article 19 of ZRU-682 allows respective bodies that can adopt normative legal acts to develop and approve legislative plans on different timelines, such as semi-annual or longer-term plans extending beyond one year. However, as mentioned in a 2023 report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE) 6, which also examined Uzbekistan’s legislative process, this flexibility can result in the creation of multiple plans, making it difficult to align and co-ordinate various policy options and regulatory developments (OSCE, 2023[6]). Stakeholders interviewed as part of this review also noted that there was often little cooperation between bodies when drafting their legislative plans, leading to co-ordination problems. As a result, the OECD found that overlaps and an overproduction of regulatory acts tended to persist in the Uzbek regulatory context.
Uzbekistan’s policymaking landscape is also influenced by a strong top-down political culture
There also appears to be a strong centralised approach to policymaking in Uzbekistan (OSCE, 2023[6]; OSCE, 2019[5]). As noted in the 2023 OSCE report, the President's Administration is the primary body responsible for regulatory policy within the country (OSCE, 2023[6]; OSCE, 2019[5]). The President shares lawmaking powers with the Oliy Majlis (the Parliament) and all legislative plans administered by the Administration of the President lead to binding obligations for the government to implement. While it is acknowledged that other executive bodies can have a role in proposing regulatory acts, the direction of the Administration of the President has precedent in setting new regulations. This centralisation of policymaking power is largely due to the institutional set-up of Uzbekistan, given that the primary mandate of the country’s Cabinet of Ministers is to supervise the implementation of the President’s mandate in accordance with the State programme (OSCE, 2019[5]).
In acknowledging the recent reforms Uzbekistan has undertaken to enhance an evidence-informed regulatory landscape, it is also important to recognise the new institutions and units supporting this progress. Regulatory oversight bodies play a crucial role in advancing effective "whole-of-government" regulatory governance and policymaking. These bodies are instrumental in promoting a culture of GRPs, guiding policymakers in the use of essential regulatory management tools and ensuring the development and design of high-quality regulations (OECD, 2021[7]).
In Uzbekistan, the role of regulatory oversight is fulfilled by the MoJ and its mandate is designated under paragraph 4 of RP-5025. The analysis and review of the MoJ is also supported by a unified methodology for regulatory impact assessment, outlined in the Ministry of Justice’s Order No. 32927.
As the designated oversight body to the administration, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for:
Co-ordinating activities for state bodies and organisations on assessing regulatory impact and conducting public consultations on draft regulatory legal acts;
Monitoring the activities of state bodies and organisations concerning regulatory impact assessment and public consultations on draft regulatory legal acts;
Compiling a list of employees in state bodies and organisations responsible for regulatory impact assessment, making proposals for improving their qualifications and skills, including organising training abroad; and
Routinely checking the performance of the system and developing proposals for its further improvement.
Source: Article 4 of Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (15.03.2021, No. RP 5025), https://lex.uz/uz/docs/5700347#5700523.
A reinforcement of analytical resources is required in the MoJ
Since its inception, the MoJ has appeared to manage its mandate effectively despite the growing demands on its competencies. However, the OECD has noted that for the MoJ to continue effectively serving its diverse functions, it will need to expand and augment its resources. At the time of this review, only 15 personnel were part of the oversight unit in the MoJ.
Without an increase in resources, the unit is likely to struggle in the coming years to maintain its current level of performance and fully meet all aspects of its mandate. The OECD had already observed that the unit faced challenges in meeting the administration's demand for additional training due to limited staff availability and capacity. The OECD team also noted that, at times, the Ministry lacked the capacity to review complex assessments. As a result, if the Ministry's resources are not reinforced in the short term, it could hinder the overall impact of better regulation across the administration. In the worst case, it could even reverse the progress the administration has seen in advancing principles of EIPM.
Earlier this year, however, under the developments of Presidential Decree No. UP-80, the Institute for Legislation Analysis and Regulatory Impact Assessment was established. This body is expected to collaborate closely with the MoJ to develop and implement programmes for assessing the regulatory impact of legislative acts. The body will be located under the MoJ. While the OECD was unable to evaluate the effectiveness of this organisation during the current review given its recent adoption, close monitoring, especially in its formative years, will be crucial to ensure that the institute achieves effective results. It is equally important that this body is also staffed with a sufficient number of human resources and that the relevance of providing adequate analytical resources is fully recognised.
Regulatory oversight should be ensured across the “whole-of-government”
In addition to reinforcing the human resources of the MoJ, there is a need to clarify whether regulatory oversight is considered across the whole-of-government. The MoJ appears to be responsible only for ensuring the quality control of laws developed at the executive level. However, several normative legal acts can also be adopted at higher levels of government, such as by the Administration of the President, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the Oliy Majlis. To the OECD, it was unclear whether the development and oversight of these acts were included as part of the MoJ’s review.
Two laws exist in Uzbekistan, however, to support parliamentary oversight procedures—the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Parliamentary Control8 and the Law on the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis. These acts, however, did not appear to align with the oversight practices of the MoJ (OSCE, 2023[6]). Stronger alignment between the MoJ’s regulatory oversight guidance and parliamentary oversight could improve the relevance of evidence-informed lawmaking within the country. It could additionally support with reinforcing the approaches for GRPs across the whole-of-government.
The MoJ’s analysis is supported by the assessment of three “statement issuing bodies”
Statement-issuing bodies in Uzbekistan’s regulatory framework are administrative entities tasked with evaluating impacts within their areas of competence before the final RIA report and regulatory draft are submitted to the MoJ for final review. In Uzbekistan, according to Chapter 3 of RP-5025, these bodies are designated to:
The Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The Competition Promotion and Consumer Protection Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan; and;
The Ministry of Ecology, Environmental Protection and Climate Change of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
These bodies provide essential feedback to developers on whether the impacts on entrepreneurial activity, competition, and the environment have been adequately addressed. They may also request additional information to developers to ensure the robustness of regulatory proposals and their evaluation of impacts. The establishment of these bodies underscores a strengthened commitment to ensuring the development of high-quality regulations in Uzbekistan. They further showcase the commitment to enhancing transparency, improving regulatory processes, and fostering a more comprehensive approach to EIPM across the government.
In addition to the institutional framework supporting good regulatory governance, EIPM relies heavily on the effectiveness and skills of the civil service. The promotion of good governance largely depends on the ability of public servants to analyse data, conduct rigorous research, and communicate information effectively to shape and inform sound policy decisions.
In Uzbekistan, the administration faces significant analytical capacity constraints. The rapid introduction of RIA in the country has put new pressures and unprecedented demands on the administration to adapt. Although ministries have small units dedicated to regulatory analysis, these units appear to be inadequately resourced. Furthermore, only a limited number of policymakers appear to have the necessary skills to support the curation of well-founded policies.
There is a need to improve the training and guidance available for regulatory policymaking
To strengthen the administration's capacity for promoting good regulatory governance, regular training sessions and guidance materials could be made more widely available. This approach would not only ensure that the methodologies adopted are up to date but would also actively enhance and refresh the skills of the administration.
As part of its mandate, the MoJ plans training seminars and conferences for selected public staff members to reinforce capacities for regulatory management. Between 2021 and 2022, the MoJ organised 40 training seminars and conducted two international conferences on RIA. During this same period, the ministry also facilitated a two-week training session for 112 employees of state and local self-government bodies. These sessions featured both foreign and domestic experts in RIA and covered a range of topics, including how to develop and formulate an RIA, methodologies for assessing the regulatory impact of draft legal acts, methods of information collection, and on other related topics.
That said, the OECD did find that access to these trainings was not as inclusive as they could be. Many participants interviewed during this review expressed interest in attending these sessions, but most of the training opportunities appeared to be available only to those directly involved in regulatory policymaking. Additionally, there seemed to be no formal manual currently in place to support policymakers with providing ad hoc guidance.
Therefore, to address this, Uzbekistan could consider expanding the availability of these trainings to a broader range of public servants to advance the understanding of GRPs across the administration. Guidance and manuals could also be developed to improve the accessibility of information available to strengthen the quality of regulatory proposals. Encouragingly, it appeared, however, that during the period of this review, some of these developments were already underway.
The role of RIA focal points
In each ministry with the authority to develop new regulatory acts, RIA focal points have been appointed to lead and co-ordinate the use of GRPs. This has been a positive development towards advancing the culture of better regulation across the Uzbek administration. It has supported with ensuring that its principles and application are understood organically.
The OECD, however, understood that a significant proportion of this network comprised of lawyers, given that the RIA focal point also had the dual responsibility of assessing legal opinions on drafts before they were considered by management. Therefore, moving forward, it could be beneficial to ensure that the network also includes individuals from diverse backgrounds. This would involve not only including those who understand Uzbekistan's legal framework but also bringing in experts from other relevant fields, such as data science, econometrics, environmental science, and other specialised areas. Incorporating these diverse perspectives would highlight the range of skills needed to develop well-informed policies and promote a more collaborative, bottom-up approach to information and knowledge sharing across the administration.
While the strength of capacities is one element to advance the development of well-informed policies, data availability and the use of data in policymaking is equally relevant for supporting EIPM. Without adequate data, policymakers are constrained in their abilities to conduct thorough analysis and ensure the quality of regulations. Data serves as the foundation for identifying key issues, evaluating policy options, and measuring the impact of implemented strategies (OECD, 2020[1]; OECD, 2020[8]).
Recent efforts in Uzbekistan have been dedicated to improving data availability across the administration. For instance, in August 2021, the State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Statistics launched an enhanced version of the Open Data Portal of Uzbekistan, replacing the previous version of the portal9. More recently, they also introduced a single database named "SIAT" for official statistics to enhance the accessibility of statistical information10. Currently, the Open Data Portal of the Republic of Uzbekistan hosts over 9,000 open datasets published by 160 ministries and departments. SIAT, on the other hand, culminates more than 2,000 indicators and has reportedly reduced the time for publishing and searching official statistics by 5 to 10 times (Daryo, 2023[9]). These developments demonstrate Uzbekistan's commitment to making data more accessible across the administration and highlight the potential of further integrating data into the country's policymaking efforts.
Greater awareness of Uzbekistan’s data supply is needed to reinforce the use of data in policymaking
The OECD observed that feedback from stakeholders varied significantly regarding their awareness of these data portals. This suggests that data may not be utilised as effectively as it could be for designing and informing evidence-informed regulations. During discussions with stakeholders about their use of data in policymaking, many expressed that it was difficult locating relevant data across the administration, and most were unaware of the existence of these platforms.
Consequently, it is crucial to ensure that these portals receive effective buy-in and awareness across the administration. Providing better guidance and information about these portals to administrative staff could also be essential. Contemplating alternative ideas such as developing analytical tools that closely linked these portals to regulatory policy instruments could also help with advancing the use of data in regulatory policymaking.
For example, in some OECD countries, regulatory databases and analytical tools have been developed to facilitate a more seamless integration of statistical information into policymaking. Tools such as regulatory compliance cost calculators and burden calculators have supported policymakers in conducting more effective assessments of regulatory impacts. An overview of how some of these tools have been implemented in OECD countries, and their potential usefulness for Uzbekistan, is provided in Box 5.2.
Several OECD governments have already developed tools to support policymakers in integrating critical data when developing and reviewing regulation, from relatively simple regulatory compliance cost calculators to complex microsimulation models for regulatory impact analysis and evaluation. However, governments have generally developed only basic analytical tools and statistical databases to analyse regulation despite open data initiatives. Nonetheless, these tools have limited the burden on policymakers to find relevant data sources and in many cases, countries referred to general regulatory databases on business counts and wages to support the measurement of regulatory compliance costs.
In Canada, for example, a regulatory compliance cost calculator (RCC) was developed to support policymakers to calculate the regulatory burden imposed on businesses of regulations made by the Governor in Council or by a Minister delegated through federal legislation. The RCC is populated with data from Canada’s statistical agency – Statistics Canada – on the number of businesses in Canada meeting a specific criterion, and this data is then used to calculate the “population” factor under the Standard Cost Model. The RCC, however, is a tool for internal government use only (OECD, 2022[10]).
Alternatively in Australia, the Australia Social Value Bank (ASVB) has been created to support relevant stakeholders, including government officials, to measure the social value of different government policies, programmes or other related social programs. The ASVB is a database of methodologically consistent and robust social values to help parties measure the social impact of their programs and policies. It currently contains 63 different social indicators related to aspects of Australian life (Australian Social Value Bank, n.d.[11]). New Zealand purchased a license to use the ASVB in 2017.
In Finland, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has developed a Regulatory Burden Calculator to assist in the country’s efforts to assess impacts on enterprises more effectively and for the country’s efforts on one-for-one. The Regulatory Burden Calculator contains several items, which include data on prices, salaries, wages for positions across different levels, the average annual working hours, and other relevant categories (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, n.d.[12]). The evaluation that results from these calculations supports policymakers to promptly assess and contextualise the cost of the regulation within the economic landscape.
Figure 5.1 offers an overview of the type of data which is most included as part of these analytical tools.
Note: This data is based on a survey the OECD undertook in 2021 under a project funded by the European Union via the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) and implemented by the OECD, in co-operation with the European Commission Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM) and the Government of Portugal (PlanAPP). The one-for-one calculations mentioned in the case of Finland, refers to the idea that regulatory agencies should not be able to adopt a new regulation without simultaneously abolishing an existing regulation (Trnka and Thuerer, 2019[13]).
Sources: (OECD, 2022[10]), Regulatory databases and analytical tools to support regulatory analysis, Unpublished; (Australian Social Value Bank, n.d.[11]); (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, n.d.[12]).
Acknowledging the progress Uzbekistan has made in developing a more robust framework for EIPM, the second part of this chapter will take a closer look at the RIA and stakeholder engagement framework in the country. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the legal framework for RIA in Uzbekistan is established under RP-5025. RP-5025 is further supported by the MoJ’s Order No. 3292.
Regulatory impact assessment (ex ante RIA)
Regulatory impact assessments are a critical tool for governments. When applied systematically and comprehensively across all government sectors, they help ensure higher quality in government interventions (OECD, 2020[8]). The RIA process itself is a systematic approach to weigh the benefits and costs of various regulatory and non-regulatory options for the government to address a specific problem in society. Governments must make decisions for new laws based on a sound rationale and evidence; otherwise, regulations and policies will not be-fit-for-purpose and, in the worst case, may do more harm than good.
RIA is a fundamental part of the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance, which all OECD Member and partner countries are expected to follow. An overview of its principles and best practices can be examined in Box 5.3.
Building on the 2012 OECD Recommendation (OECD, 2012[3]), the following best practice principles have been devised in relation to ex ante assessments.
Commitment and buy in for RIA
Governments should:
Spell out what governments consider as “good regulations”.
Introduce RIA as part of a comprehensive long-term plan to boost the quality of regulation.
Create an oversight unit for RIA with sufficient competences.
Create credible “internal and external constraints”, which guarantee that RIA will be implemented effectively.
Secure political backing for RIA
Securing stakeholder support is essential.
Governments have to enable public participation in the RIA process.
Governance of RIA – having the right set up or system design
RIA should be fully integrated with other regulatory management tools and should be implemented in the context of the Regulatory Governance Cycle.
RIA and its implementation should be adjusted to the legal and administrative system and culture of the country.
Governments need to decide whether to implement RIA at once or gradually.
Responsibilities for RIA programme elements must be allocated carefully.
Efficient regulatory oversight is a crucial precondition for a successful RIA.
Resources invested in RIA must be carefully targeted.
Parliaments should be encouraged to set up their own procedures to guarantee the quality of legislation, including the quality of RIA.
Embedding RIA through strengthening capacity and accountability of the administration
Adequate training must be provided to civil servants.
Governments should publish detailed guidance material.
There should be only limited exceptions to the general rule that RIA is required.
Accountability- and performance-oriented arrangements should be implemented.
Targeted and appropriate RIA methodology
The RIA methodology should be as simple and flexible as possible, while ensuring certain key
features are covered.
RIA should not always be interpreted as requiring a full-fledged quantitative cost-benefit
analysis of legislation.
Sound strategies on collecting and accessing data must be developed.
RIA has to be undertaken at the inception stage of policy development.
No RIA can be successful without defining the policy context and objectives, in particular the
systematic identification of the problem.
All plausible alternatives, including non-regulatory solutions must be taken into account.
It is essential to always identify all relevant direct and indirect costs as well as benefits.
Public consultations must be incorporated systematically in the RIA process.
Insights from behavioural economics should be considered, as appropriate.
The development of enforcement and compliance strategies should be part of every RIA.
RIA should be perceived as an iterative process.
Results of RIA should be well communicated.
Continuous monitoring, evaluation and improvement of RIA
It is important to validate the real impacts of adopted regulations after their implementation.
RIA systems should also have an in-built monitoring, evaluation and refinement mechanism in place.
A regular, comprehensive evaluation of the impact of RIA on the (perceived) quality of regulatory decisions is essential.
It is important to evaluate the impacts in cases where the original RIA document does not coincide with the final text of the proposal.
Systematic evaluation of the performance of the regulatory oversight bodies is important.
Source: (OECD, 2020[8]), OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
The ex ante RIA process in Uzbekistan
In Uzbekistan, an ex ante RIA is mandatory for the development of all normative legal acts that involve entrepreneurship, the environment, and the civil liberties of citizens. The specific criteria to be evaluated as part of an ex ante assessment in Uzbekistan are detailed in Paragraph 11 of RP-5025 and include the following:
A description of the problem: A clear identification of the policy issue and the potential negative consequences if regulatory action is not taken.
The feasibility and benefit of the proposed regulatory proposal: An explanation of how the proposed regulation addresses the identified problem.
Identification of alternatives to the regulatory proposal: An assessment of alternative methods for addressing the identified problem.
Identification of potential affected subjects: An identification of the individuals or entities likely to be impacted by the draft law.
Analysis and comparison: A quantitative analysis and comparison of the proposed regulation with alternative options.
Impact assessment: An evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed regulation.
Measures for goal achievement: An outline of the goals to be achieved by the regulation.
Projected date of entry into force: The anticipated date when the draft regulation is expected to become effective.
Additional data: Any other relevant information pertaining to the impact assessment.
Ex ante RIAs are prepared by the competent ministry (i.e., the developer), which will implement and monitor the normative legal act once it will be enacted. In ministries, both the legal act and the RIA are prepared by established working groups, which include individuals with varying competences, such as lawyers, economists, representatives of expert and analytical groups, and employees responsible for the RIA (i.e., the RIA focal points). The RIA focal point within the ministry is responsible for managing the activities of the working group and co-ordinating the development of both documents.
Once an initial draft of both documents are prepared, several phases of consultation are undertaken. First, they are posted on Uzbekistan’s public consultation portal for a period of at least 15 days. They are then submitted to the administration’s three “statement issuing bodies” for an inter-ministerial review of the evaluated impacts. After the documents have undergone all pertinent consultations, they are then submitted to the MoJ for a final evaluation. In a period of 10 days, the MoJ formulates an opinion on whether it agrees with the evaluation of the regulatory dossier or whether the dossier must undergo further evaluation. If the regulatory dossier is deemed insufficient, the MoJ has the authority to reject the report and request amendments from the developer under a specified period. The MoJ’s review includes assessing the developer's compliance with the requirements of this regulation during the RIA process, identifying any unjustified costs within the project, detecting the imposition of unnecessary obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions, and evaluating the validity of the proposed regulatory approach to solving the problem.
At the conclusion of the process, the MoJ submits all completed RIA reports to the Cabinet of Ministers. Based on the RIA results, the Cabinet of Ministers establishes the government’s regulatory roadmap. This roadmap informs decision-makers about the status of regulations to be adopted based on their RIA results and includes information on any potential amendments to laws (to be further discussed in the Ex post reviews section). If the roadmap includes new legal acts, it may be submitted to the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan for final consideration.
An assessment of Uzbekistan’s ex ante RIA procedures
In general, the guidelines established in RP-5025 demonstrate elements of good practices. However, there are elements of Uzbekistan’s RIA framework which could be reinforced or elaborated for practice. For example, Uzbekistan's proportionality principle appears to be broad defined, ex ante impact assessments are conducted late in the policymaking process, and there is a need to enhance clarity in defining regulatory objectives to improve the monitoring of regulatory performance. More details on this assessment, alongside others are provided below:
Uzbekistan has made significant progress by introducing a comprehensive ex ante RIA framework. However, this initiative lacks a proportional approach to ensure that limited resources are focused on regulations with the highest potential impact. Currently, Uzbekistan’s proportionality principle requires RIAs for draft regulations related to entrepreneurship, civil liberties, and environmental issues. While this is a positive step towards adopting best practices, the principle is applied too broadly, diverting resources to almost all regulations. Refining the proportionality principle to assess regulatory proposals based on their expected impact would be beneficial. The costs and time involved in developing and analysing a regulatory proposal should be justified by its positive impact on policy decisions or regulatory quality. Resources allocated to policy development should also align with the scale of the problem and its solution (OECD, 2020[14]).
RIAs are implemented late in Uzbekistan’s policymaking process. According to the 2012 OECD recommendation, RIA should be integrated at the earliest stages of the policy process (OECD, 2012[3]; OECD, 2020[8]). However, this essential practice is not consistently observed in Uzbekistan. In most cases, RIAs are conducted only after a regulation has been outlined in the Government’s planning. While Paragraph 7 of RP-5025 allows for an early-stage RIA at the discretion of the Administration of the President, the Cabinet of Ministers, or at the initiative of the developer, this option appears to be rarely applied in practice.
To fully realise the benefits of ex ante RIAs, they must be positioned earlier in the policymaking process (OECD, 2012[3]). Ideally, RIA should be initiated when legislative plans are first proposed. This approach ensures that the effectiveness of the regulation as a policy mechanism is thoroughly assessed and that alternative policy options are considered. Systematic and early application of RIA is crucial for maximising its potential to improve regulatory outcomes. Encouragingly, the OECD observed that the MoJ had recently developed a proposal to introduce the RIA mechanism at the planning stage of a regulatory legal act. During the period of this review, this proposal appeared to be under the consideration of the Presidential Administration.
RIAs are currently conducted only once during the regulatory policymaking process11. Paragraph 7 of Chapter 1 of RP-5025 suggests that revisions to an RIA are unnecessary unless a new regulatory instrument, not included in the initial proposal, is introduced. However, this approach overlooks the possibility that any changes, whether minor or major (e.g., in wording)., to a regulatory draft can impact the outcomes. As a result, RIAs should not only be implemented at the earliest stages of the policy development cycle but should also be employed as a standard tool throughout the entire regulatory policymaking process (i.e., as an iterative process) (OECD, 2020[8]). If a RIA identifies new impacts, even if there are no changes to the regulatory instrument being applied, these developments should be communicated to the government and relevant stakeholders. Alternative policy option should also be continuously considered when necessary.
The remaining assessments pertain to the OECD’s observations on the quality of ex ante RIA:
Analysis of RIAs are not granular enough. In the course of this review, the OECD was granted access to one RIA report, which focused on the adoption of information and communications technology to enhance public security in Uzbekistan. Specifically, this report examined the implementation of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) systems and was prepared through a collaboration between the MoJ and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. While this RIA was well-developed, it appeared to be an exception rather than the norm. Stakeholder discussions revealed that, in practice, the analysis of costs and benefits was often insufficient or incomplete, primarily due to a lack of data and the absence of clear guidelines on which impacts to assess12 e.g., detailed guidance on evaluating various environmental or social impacts. Additionally, alternatives to regulation appeared to be seldomly thoroughly considered. It is therefore essential to clearly define the impacts policymakers should evaluate13 and to explore tools that can enhance the depth of these assessments (e.g., those described in Box 5.2).
Finally, policy objectives are not always clearly defined as part of the regulatory proposal. Conversations with stakeholders suggested that the purpose of a regulation is not always clearly defined, making it difficult to assess the regulation's effectiveness later on. Monitoring regulations is crucial for determining whether a regulation or another policy tool is the best approach for addressing a specific issue. Establishing clear objectives for a regulation can not only clarify the rationale behind its imposition but also enables policymakers to track its performance and, if necessary, make adjustments to ensure the desired policy outcomes are achieved. OECD often advises that objectives of regulation should be set using the principles of SMART14.
Canada applies RIA to all subordinate regulations but employs a triage system to decide the extent of the analysis. The development of a Triage Statement (low, medium, high impact) early in the development of the regulatory proposal determines whether the proposal will require a full or expedited RIA. The triage system may be bypassed in favour of an expedited RIA if there is an immediate and serious risk to the security of Canadians, the environment, or the economy.
Switzerland uses a relatively complex checklist based on a set number of conditions. When three of the 10 conditions are met, then a more in-depth analysis is required. These conditions cover a wide variety of measures, including:
General economic consequences
Main stakeholders in at least 3 of the following categories: SMEs, large enterprises, workers,
Confederation and / or cantons, taxpayers, consumers, environment, other / undetermined
Number of enterprises affected
Administrative burden, regulatory costs
Competition
Degree of international openness
Attractiveness of the economy for investment
Ecological sustainability
Social sustainability
Energy consumption
If the proposal has high administrative burdens, (at least 10,000 directly impacted businesses, increased administrative burden), the RIA must include not only a quantitative estimate of the costs of regulation, but also a qualitative assessment.
The United States operates a quantitative test to decide to apply RIA for subordinate regulation. Executive Order 12866 requires a full RIA for economically significant regulations. The threshold for “economically significant” regulations (which are a subset of all “significant” regulations) is set out in Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866: “Have an annual effect on the economy of USD 200 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities”.
The European Commission has a proportionate analysis approach to regulation. Impact assessments are prepared for Commission initiatives that are expected to have significant direct economic, social or environmental impacts. The Commission Secretariat general decides whether or not this threshold is met on the basis of reasoned proposal made by the lead service. Results are published in a roadmap.
Sources: (OECD, 2015[15]), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en. (OECD, 2020[14]), A closer look at proportionality and threshold tests for RIA, Annex to the Best Practice Principles for RIA, OECD, 2020.
Ex post reviews
Alongside ex ante assessments, ex post reviews play a crucial role in ensuring the suitability of regulations. While ex ante RIAs evaluate the potential impacts and effectiveness of proposed regulations before implementation, ex post reviews assess the actual outcomes and effectiveness of regulations after they have been enacted. It is therefore important to regularly monitor the stock of regulations to ensure their relevance and to ensure that regulations that may be efficient today are not inefficient in the future.
The importance of using ex post evaluations to assess the ongoing worth of regulations is recognised in the OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Reviewing the Stock of Regulation. An overview of its guidance is detailed in Box 5.5.
Building on the 2012 OECD Recommendation (OECD, 2012[3]) the following best practice principles have been devised in relation to ex post evaluation.
Overarching principles
Regulatory policy frameworks should explicitly incorporate ex post reviews as an integral and
permanent part of the regulatory cycle.
A sound system for the ex post review of regulation would ensure comprehensive coverage of the regulatory stock over time, while “quality controlling” key reviews and monitoring the operations of the system as a whole.
Reviews should include an evidence-based assessment of the actual outcomes from regulations against their rationales and objectives, note any lessons and make recommendations to address any performance deficiencies.
System governance
There need to be oversight and accountability systems within government administrations to ensure that key areas of regulation are not missed and that reviews are conducted appropriately.
There are benefits in institutional arrangements that combine oversight of the processes for ex ante as well as ex post evaluation processes, and that do so across the whole-of-government.
The type of ex post review, and its timing or “trigger”, are best determined at the time regulations are made.
Departments and agencies should provide advance notice of forthcoming reviews of regulation (ideally in the form of an annual “forward regulatory review plan”).
There should be explicit provision in agency budgets to cover the costs of reviewing regulations for which they are responsible.
Broad approaches to reviews
A “portfolio” of approaches to the ex post review of regulation will generally be needed. In broad terms, such approaches range from programmed reviews to those initiated on an ad hoc basis, or as part of ongoing “management” processes.
Programmed reviews:
For regulations or laws with potentially important impacts on society or the economy, particularly those containing innovative features or where their effectiveness is uncertain, it is desirable to embed review requirements in the legislative/regulatory framework itself.
Sunset requirements provide a useful “failsafe” mechanism to ensure the entire stock of subordinate regulation remains fit for purpose over time.
Post-implementation reviews within a shorter timeframe (1 to 2 years) are relevant to situations in which an ex ante regulatory assessment was deemed inadequate (by an oversight body for example) or a regulation was introduced despite known deficiencies or downside risks.
Ad hoc reviews:
Public “stocktakes” of regulation provide a periodic opportunity to identify current problem areas in specific sectors or the economy as a whole.
Stocktake-type reviews can also employ a screening criterion or principle to focus on specific.
performance issues or impacts of concern.
“In depth” public reviews are appropriate for major regulatory regimes that involve significant complexities or interactions, or that are highly contentious, or both.
“Benchmarking” of regulation can be a useful mechanism for identifying improvements based on comparisons with jurisdictions having similar policy frameworks and objectives.
Ongoing stock management
There need to be mechanisms in place that enable “on the ground” learnings within enforcement bodies about a regulation’s performance to be conveyed as a matter of course to areas of government with policy responsibility.
Regulatory offset rules (such as one-in one-out) and Burden Reduction Targets or quotas need to include a requirement that regulations slated for removal, if still “active”, first undergo some form of assessment as to their worth.
Review methods should themselves be reviewed periodically to ensure that they too remain fit for purpose.
Governance of individual reviews
The governance and resourcing of reviews, and the approaches employed, need to be proportionate to the nature and significance of the regulations concerned. While needing to be cost-effective, arrangements should be such as to facilitate findings that are sufficiently well supported to be publicly credible.
For many regulations, evaluations will be best conducted within the departments or ministries having policy responsibility. Enforcement bodies normally should not conduct reviews themselves but are uniquely placed to offer relevant information and advice and should be closely consulted.
The more “sensitive” a regulatory area, and the more significant its economic or social impacts, the stronger the case for an “arm’s-length” or independent review process. This in turn requires, at a minimum, that those leading a review are not beholden to the agency concerned and have no perceived conflicts of interest.
Transparency is paramount for in-depth reviews. Reviews should be publicly announced, with scope for stakeholder input and the findings/recommendations as well as the government’s response made publicly available.
Key questions to be answered in reviews
Appropriateness: reviews should address as a threshold question whether a valid rationale for regulating still exists.
Effectiveness: reviews should determine whether the regulation (or set of regulations) actually achieves the objectives for which it was introduced.
Efficiency: reviews need to determine whether regulations give rise to unnecessary costs (beyond those needed to achieve the regulatory goal) or other unintended impacts
Alternatives: reviews should consider whether modifications to regulations, or their replacement by alternative policy instruments, are called for.
Methodologies
Evaluations should be conducted within a cost-benefit framework that firstly identifies and documents impacts of relevance and then assesses their relative magnitudes.
Quantification should be encouraged where feasible, as it brings additional rigour to assessments of impacts and potential outcomes.
Data requirements are best considered at the time a regulation is being made, as part of wider.
consideration of the type of ex post review that would be most appropriate.
The observed impacts of a regulation should ideally be compared with “counterfactuals” – how things might have turned out otherwise.
Public consultations
All reviews should involve consultations with affected parties, and to the extent possible, be accessible to civil society.
The nature and extent (coverage, duration) of consultations should be proportionate to the significance of the regulations and the degree of public interest or sensitivity entailed.
Prioritisation and sequencing
High priority should be given to reviewing regulations that have a) wide coverage across the economy or community and b) potentially significant impacts on citizens or organisations – i.e. “breadth and depth” – and for which there is c) prima facie evidence of a “problem”.
Attention to sequencing can be important to maximise the realised gains from reforms.
There are benefits in reviewing regulations as a group, rather than in a piecemeal fashion, where they are interactive or operate jointly to achieve related policy objectives.
Capacity building
Having in-house capability in evaluation and review methods is essential, both in order to conduct reviews internally as well as to oversee those commissioned externally.
Capacity enhancement needs to be pursued through the training of existing staff as well as through recruitment, with on-the-job learning an important element.
Consultants can usefully supplement the expertise available within government, but how they may best contribute to specific cases needs careful consideration, and they should not be over utilised to the detriment of internal capability.
Committed leadership
Support from political leaders is essential to the establishment and ongoing effectiveness of systems for the ex post review of regulation.
Senior officials within the bureaucracy need to promote a culture of evaluation within their organisations and be vigilant in ensuring that good practice is actually followed “on the ground”.
Source: (OECD, 2020[16]), OECD Best Practice Principles for Reviewing the Stock of Regulation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a8f33bc-en.
The ex post review process in Uzbekistan
In Uzbekistan, ex post reviews can be conducted for all legal acts that have previously undergone ex ante RIAs. These reviews can only take place at least one year after the initial assessment15. Similar to ex ante RIAs, ex post reviews are prepared by the relevant ministry responsible for overseeing and preparing the legislation. The MoJ, on the other hand, prepares an opinion on the conducted ex post assessment. The complete guidance and methodology for ex post reviews is detailed in the MoJ’s Order No. 3292.
For the planning of ex post reviews, state bodies are required to submit a list of normative acts they believe should undergo review to the MoJ by 1 February each year. The MoJ is responsible for compiling these proposals and preparing the draft annual monitoring plan by 10 February. This plan is then submitted on Uzbekistan’s stakeholder engagement portal for a period of 10 days for public discussions.
The Ministry of Justice summarises the proposals submitted by the participants of public discussions, and by 1 March, submits to the Cabinet of Ministers information on their acceptance or rejection as well as a plan for conducting the ex post assessment based on these proposals (i.e., the RIA plan).
Concurrently, the MoJ must also prepare an additional report for the Cabinet of Ministers, detailing the previous year's activities related to legislative monitoring and law enforcement practices. This report should include recommendations for the adoption, amendment, or cancellation of regulatory documents based on the prior year’s ex post reviews, as well as proposals to improve law enforcement practices, address legislative gaps, and combat corruption.
The Cabinet of Ministers reviews and approves both the RIA plan and the report by 20 March each year. Once approved, the plan is put into effect. Heads of State Administration Bodies are personally accountable for ensuring the quality and timeliness of legal monitoring, as well as for the development and reporting of the monitoring plan. The specifications of ex post reviews and their planning in Uzbekistan are detailed in Presidential Decree No. PQ-450516.
Administrative simplification efforts in Uzbekistan
In relation to ex post reviews, the Republic of Uzbekistan has made substantial progress in administrative simplification in recent years. In 2020, as part of its commitment to the 2017-2021 Action Strategy, Uzbekistan undertook a comprehensive inventory of existing regulations, resulting in the elimination of 2,500 outdated rules. This process was conducted via the principle of regulatory guillotine as the mechanism for reducing the regulatory burden, ensuring a large-scale review and abolition of outdated and outdated norms that adversely affected the business climate.
Moreover, Uzbekistan’s 2030 Development Strategy has outlined plans to broaden its ex post review framework, with the objective of increasing the coverage of effective monitoring of the implementation of normative and legal acts to 100%17.
An assessment of Uzbekistan’s ex post review procedures
Similar to its efforts in ex ante assessments, Uzbekistan has demonstrated a clear commitment to advancing its practices and guidance for ex post reviews. However, more systematic and consistent reviews of regulations are required. Despite upcoming efforts to broaden the ex post framework in Uzbekistan, it currently appears that most ex post reviews appear to be initiated based on proposals from ministries and public perception monitoring.
The following section provides more details on this assessment, as well as other relevant assessments related to Uzbekistan’s ex post framework, are provided below:
There is a need to develop a diverse portfolio of approaches for ex post regulatory reviews in Uzbekistan. At present, regulatory reviews in the administration appear to occur mostly on an ad-hoc basis, typically in response to public requests for specific regulations to be examined. However, integrating programmed reviews as part of Uzbekistan’s regulatory management framework, could establish a more structured framework for ex post evaluations by specifying review timelines during the drafting of regulations. Examples of such programmed reviews can include sunset clauses and post-implementation reviews (OECD, 2020[16]).
Regulations exempt from ex ante RIA are not explicitly required to undergo post-implementation reviews. According to the guidance provided in RP-5025, ex post reviews apply only to draft regulatory acts that have undergone an ex ante assessment. However, there are circumstances in which Uzbekistan can exempt certain regulations from ex ante assessments. For example, in the following cases:
A regulatory legal act is aimed at preventing emergencies or eliminating their consequences, such as introducing restrictive measures (quarantine) to prevent the spread of infectious and parasitic diseases;
A draft regulatory legal act or adopted normative legal act provides for changes and additions aimed at aligning with the requirements of newly adopted legislative acts; or
A regulatory legal act or adopted regulatory legal extends beyond elements related to entrepreneurship, civil liberties, and the environment.
While swift administrative responses may sometimes require bypassing a full ex ante assessment, it is crucial to mandate a follow-up assessment shortly after the regulation's implementation. Sunset clauses, in this context, can be particularly effective, as they can automatically trigger reviews of regulations after a specified period18.
There is also a need to better align the criteria used in ex post reviews with those from ex ante assessments19. The true effectiveness of a regulation ex post can only be known if it’s measured against its originally set objectives. Therefore, linked to the assessment of needing to specify early-on the objectives of a regulation, it is important that these same objectives are used to re-assess the performance of the regulation. Presently, while the MoJ's Order No. 3292 advises that ex post reviews should verify whether a regulation has achieved its objectives, it remains difficult to assess the effectiveness of this process in practice, especially given the earlier observation that policy objectives are not always clearly defined in regulatory proposals.
The following assessments pertain to the OECD’s observations on the governance of ex post reviews:
Similar considerations for refining Uzbekistan’s proportionality principle should be applied to ex post reviews. While Uzbekistan’s commitment to extending its ex post assessment framework to 100% is significant, it is also crucial to consider its implications on available resources. The allocation of human resources for review should be based on a) their coverage across the economy or society, b) the significance of their impact on citizens, and c) the evidence of the problem. This assessment should help to determine the frequency of ex post reviews and the proportion of time and resources required for the review.
Training on ex post reviews should also be initiated to reinforce analytical capacities across the administration. Although the MoJ has developed training modules for RIA, most appeared to focus on ex ante analysis rather than ex post analysis. While there may be common methodologies between the two, the importance and specific requirements of ex post analysis need to be more comprehensively addressed. Tailored training programmes could therefore be designed to cover the unique aspects of ex post reviews. Elements of the training could include the evaluation of regulatory outcomes, stakeholder impacts, and the alignment of regulations with their original objectives.
Finally, there could be scope to strengthen the parliamentary oversight on the evaluation of all laws and regulations. The 2023 OSCE report also noted that “[while] monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of legislation is partly embodied in the ex post RIA exercise, [it] is conducted without any involvement of the parliament and it is not subject to a proper parliamentary oversight” (OSCE, 2023, p. 31[6]).
Parliamentary oversight, however, is essential for not only fostering healthy regulatory governance but also for ensuring the overall effectiveness and integrity of regulatory systems. By combining the oversight provided by the MoJ with that of Parliament, it can be assured that regulations are serving the best interest of the public and that the right policy actions are being taken from the highest level of government20 (OSCE, 2023[6]).
Stakeholder engagement
As a final component for assessing the development of evidence-informed regulations, stakeholder engagement is key. As depicted in Figure 5.2, stakeholder consultation, co-ordination, communication, and collaboration are core components to the evidence-informed regulatory policymaking cycle. Engagement with stakeholders helps to maintain transparency and accountability in the policymaking process and maintains that most up-to-date and realistic information is used to inform effective policy developments.
Source: (OECD, 2011[17]); OECD (2011), Regulatory Policy and Governance: Supporting Economic Growth and Serving the Public Interest, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264116573-en.
The stakeholder engagement framework in Uzbekistan for regulatory processes
Public consultations in Uzbekistan's regulatory policymaking cycle occur at three distinct phases of the regulatory policy cycle. These stages are: prior to the drafting of regulatory proposals that hold significant economic and socio-political importance; during the development of regulatory acts, as part of the RIA; and during the revision and review of enacted regulations.
Early-stage public consultations
From 1 March 2024, Presidential Decree No. PP-7521 has necessitated Uzbekistan's administrative bodies to publish information about new regulatory acts with significant economic and socio-political impact on its consultation portal for stakeholder feedback before their development (Box 5.6). This procedure has focused on increasing the involvement from civil society institutions, the scientific community, and the public in shaping and informing the design of regulatory projects.
Late-stage public consultations
Public consultations in Uzbekistan also take place following the development of an initial regulatory draft and RIA. Once a preliminary draft of a regulatory proposal, along with its accompanying RIA is formulated, the developers of the draft proposal must engage in a 15-day public consultation period. During this phase, the public can review the legal text, provide comments, and suggest alternative calculations if necessary22.
At the conclusion of this second point of consultation, the developing ministry of the regulatory proposal is obligated to summarise the comments and present an opinion on the results of consultations to stakeholders via the online consultation portal within five days. Should the regulatory draft undergo revisions based on the feedback received during consultations, a new round of public consultation is mandated. This process applies even if a regulatory proposal undergoes changes at the Cabinet of Ministers level. The developing ministry, either on its own initiative or at the request of the MoJ, can also conduct press conferences and briefings for representatives of the media, journalists, citizens, and business entities to explain the purpose, essence, content, and significance of a draft, when applicable.
Public consultations as part of ex post reviews
Finally, public consultations are taken for the preparation of the monitoring plan (i.e., RIA Plan) establishing the list of regulatory acts to undergo a reassessment. Annually, in early February, the MoJ solicits public consultation on this plan, over a period of 10 days. Upon the conclusion of this consultation period, the MoJ consolidates the received proposals, revises the plan as needed, and submits the updated plan to the Cabinet of Ministers for approval. Feedback from stakeholders is mainly used to support the identification of burdensome and/or obsolete regulatory procedures and to support with ex post reviews of regulations.
All public consultations concerning regulatory projects and legal documents are centralised on the government’s e-consultation platform, regulation.gov.uz. At the time of this review, the website compiled over 26,000 documents. Oversight of the platform is jointly provided by the MoJ and the Ministry for Digital Technologies.
The platform includes a dashboard that highlights projects with significant social relevance, along with an integrated checklist designed to help users assess various aspects of normative legal acts. This checklist enables users to verify whether the legal text is written in plain language, identify potential duplications in regulatory functions, and evaluate any conflicts of interest. Additionally, the portal provides document translations in both Uzbek and Russian.
The existence of this portal is acknowledged in Article 13 of Chapter 2 of RP-5025.
Source: Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (15.03.2021, No. RP-5025), https://lex.uz/uz/docs/5700347#5700523.
An assessment of Uzbekistan’s stakeholder framework for regulatory development procedures
Regulatory reform initiatives in Uzbekistan have significantly strengthened the role of stakeholders in the country's regulatory policymaking process. However, it is essential to sustain stakeholder engagement throughout the entire regulatory process, ensure inclusivity, and guarantee full transparency in policymaking. The following section provides a final set of assessments on Uzbekistan’s regulatory framework, with a focus on the stakeholder engagement framework for regulatory developments.
Consultation with stakeholders may be exempted for certain regulations23. Stakeholder consultation may be exempted for certain regulations. Similar to RIA processes, governments can bypass stakeholder engagement if they provide adequate justification based on specific criteria. Nonetheless, stakeholder involvement remains crucial for supporting evidence-informed regulations. Therefore, even in urgent situations when governments need to act swiftly, a minimum level of stakeholder consultation should be preserved. This could involve adjusting the consultation period or engaging a select group of stakeholders. Such practices were observed in some OECD countries during the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD, 2020[18]).
Uzbekistan’s guidance on the minimum period for stakeholders’ consultation is observed as being relatively short. Presently, the guidance for the minimum consultation periods is between 10-15 days (depending on the stage of consultation). This brief period may not provide stakeholders with sufficient time to gather and analyse the necessary data to prepare well-informed submissions. Box 5.7 provides an overview of some of the international standards observed across the OECD.
Engagement with stakeholders also does not appear to be widely diverse. While Paragraph 16 of RP-5025 suggests that developers of regulatory drafts should consult various stakeholders, including academic and foreign interests, there seems to be a gap between this guideline and its practical implementation. Business associations are notably the primary participants providing feedback on regulatory proposals, while citizen involvement is comparatively limited. In this respect, regulatory oversight can be vital for maintaining robust practices in stakeholder engagement. If insufficient engagement is evident, ministries should be required to re-post their proposals and explore additional methods to consultations for ensuring as inclusive as possible stakeholder engagement (i.e., with vulnerable populations or less represented populations). Box 5.7 provides examples of how OECD countries have employed both informal and formal methods to strengthen their stakeholder engagement frameworks.
Finally on the governance of stakeholder engagement, the OECD observed the following assessments:
It is unclear how much of the final regulatory dossier submitted to the MoJ and the Cabinet of Ministers is shared with the public24. It is essential however to ensure that all final reports of RIA and regulatory proposals are made available for stakeholder access. The 2012 OECD Recommendation highlights that governments should, whenever possible, make RIAs accessible to the public, including final RIA reports and ex post evaluations (OECD, 2012[3]). Uzbekistan should clarify in its guidelines the requirement to publish all documents related to the regulatory dossier online or through various media channels to improve transparency in the regulatory policymaking process.
There should also be precision in the legal guidance regarding when regulatory drafts must undergo additional public consultations. Paragraph 18 of RP-5025 states that if a draft undergoes revisions after its public consultation period and significantly differs from the initially posted text, it must be resubmitted for repeat consultation. This requirement applies to all levels of government, including ministries and the Cabinet of Ministers. However, the term "significantly" needs clarification to define the threshold for what constitutes "radical" changes. The guidance should be refined to eliminate ambiguity regarding when additional stakeholder engagement is necessary and when a new RIA is required.
Governments should provide stakeholders with sufficient time to submit their view. Clear timelines should be set and publicised for stakeholder engagement activities, especially for public consultations. Stakeholder engagement is a resource-intensive exercise not only for the administration but also for stakeholders. Stakeholders must be informed sufficiently in advance on ongoing engagement activities they might get involved in and there must be enough time to get involved. Some NGOs, business associations or trade unions have to contact their members and then sometimes synthesise their inputs which makes the process even longer, especially in case of international organisations and associations.
A majority of OECD countries systematically make use of such minimum periods with a view to ensuring stakeholders have sufficient time to provide meaningful input in the rule-making process.
Generally, OECD countries allow for a minimum period of four weeks’ consultation. Many countries require or recommend minimum periods of 30 or 60 days (or longer, when the regulatory proposal is particularly complex), although there are both shorter and longer periods across members. For instance, Costa Rica, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain provide for shorter periods, while both Switzerland and the European Union have 12-week minimum periods. Where such minimum periods exist, they are usually applied systematically, i.e. for all or major primary laws or subordinate regulations.
The OECD has series a country examples complied online on stakeholder engagement practices in regulatory policy.
Source: (OECD, 2018[19]), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g90cb3-en; (OECD, 2020[16]), OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy: Reviewing the Stock of Regulation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a8f33bc-en; Pilot database on stakeholder engagement practices in regulatory policy.; (OECD, n.d.[20]), OECD (forthcoming), Best Practice Principles on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris
Informal consultations
When developing some of their regulations, the majority of OECD Members engage in informal consultations with different social partners and stakeholders that might be affected by draft regulations being consulted. These include NGOs, social groups, employer and employee associations.
Costa Rica, Iceland, Korea and Poland invite academics or experts to participate in informal consultations.
In Colombia, some policymakers have informal sectoral consultations and roundtables at different stages of the regulatory cycle to inform the development of regulations.
The Canadian Government Departments frequently meet with stakeholders to discuss regulatory proposals. For instance, during the development process of a new patient safety legislation, families, patients, healthcare providers and industry representatives were involved in the consultation process. The consultation helped regulators to identify safety improvements in the proposed regulation.
France frequently holds informal consultations with various associations such as trade unions, professional organisations, environmental protection associations, and consumer associations.
Formal consultations
Most OECD Members invite social partners and stakeholders who might be affected by a proposed regulation to formal consultations during the development of at least some of their regulations.
In Germany, representatives of various associations are invited to participate in formal consultations. These associations include unions, legal persons or groups that promote common interests, such as economic, social, cultural or political interests (e.g., employers’ associations or associations of workers).
In Lithuania, representatives of The Small and Medium-sized Business Council and of the Tripartite Council (established by the tripartite co-operation between the Government, trade unions and employers’ organisations) are invited to contribute to consultations.
The Netherlands conducts panel discussions with individual SME entrepreneurs to examine the potential impact of regulations on this group of companies.
In Norway, the Ministry of Education carried out in 2018 a formal consultation with relevant social partners that led to an agreement on a strengthened and more flexible adult education.
In Sweden, legislative proposals are sent for consultation to the relevant authorities, organisations, municipalities and other stakeholders before the government submits the final draft of the regulation.
Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Survey 2021, (OECD, 2021[7]), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
Uzbekistan has made significant progress in strengthening its regulatory framework. The adoption of RP-5025, alongside subsequent ministerial orders and Presidential Decrees focused on rulemaking, has established a foundation for embedding principles of sound regulatory practices across the administration. However, the critical challenge now lies in effectively translating these policies into actionable practices. Moving forward, Uzbekistan should prioritise enhancing the analytical capacities of the administration to ensure the adoption of GRPs, maintain a whole-of-government, but proportional approach to rulemaking, as well as reinforce the methodologies underpinning regulatory management tools. These steps are essential as the country advances its commitment to EIPM.
The recommendations presented below build on the assessments covered within this chapter. They offer considerations towards what some next development could be for Uzbekistan as it looks onwards to strengthening a more evidence-informed regulatory policymaking landscape.
Reinforce communication of better regulation principles.
Continue advancing the development of sound and effective regulatory practices while reinforcing communication on the importance of better regulation. This includes regularly demonstrating to both the public and the administration the impact of evidence-informed regulations and how they contribute to a more accountable and transparent law-making landscape.
Promote a more cohesive regulatory landscape.
Advocate for the streamlining of legislative plans to reinforce regulatory coherence. This could also promote a plan of prioritisation, and where applicable combine ministerial efforts to achieve common policy objectives. A common legislative plan across the administration could also strengthen transparency and accountability on government actions.
Strengthen the institutional framework for regulatory oversight by reinforcing resources and ensuring that it extends across the entire government.
Reinforce the capacities of the MoJ. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the Ministry's analyses, allocate effective human resources to support its operations. This should include maintaining there are a diversity of analytical skills and competences available within the Ministry to manage all levels of assessments.
Ensure a whole-of-government approach to regulatory oversight. Advocating for alignment in oversight procedures between the executive and parliamentary levels will be crucial for the development of evidence-informed normative legal acts at higher levels of government. This alignment will also help ensure consistency in the quality of both primary laws and secondary regulations.
Reinforce analytical capacities for regulatory analysis across the whole-of-government.
Allow for the basic training on the relevance of better regulation to all civil servants. Particularly, making training more accessible and available to those who may be outside the scope of directly drafting regulatory policies and their RIA.
Build guidance and manual that provide ad-hoc support to civil servants on the relevance of RIA, its methodology, and how it should properly be applied as part of the policy development framework. This guidance can also support decision-makers with evaluating assessments and maintaining that good regulatory practices are endorsed at the highest level of governance. Guidance should also be extended to cover methodology across the entirety of the regulatory policymaking process, from ex ante, ex post, and stakeholder engagement.
Maintain the network of RIA focal points to facilitate the coordination of RIA efforts across the administration and empower them as advocates of better regulation to communicate its benefits. However, this network should be inclusive, incorporating members with technical backgrounds such as data scientists, statisticians, econometricians, environmentalists, and other subject experts. This would demonstrate the variety of skills required for well-designed, and evidence-informed regulations.
Strengthen the use of data for EIPM and regulatory policymaking.
Ensure the use of data in policymaking. Data should, wherever possible, be made open and interoperable across the administration. While Uzbekistan has made significant progress for advancing open data portals and software, communication and buy-in of these resources will be essential for maintaining that data is used as part of policymaking efforts. The use of data and these data portal for policymaking could also be incorporated as part of RIA guidance and manuals.
Consider developing standardised regulatory databases or analytical tools to reinforce and support the use of data in policymaking Box 5.2 provides examples of how some countries have adopted this approach.
Reinforce the ex ante RIA framework.
Refine Uzbekistan’s principle of proportionality for RIA. Many OECD countries recognise that not every regulation requires the same level of scrutiny. The costs and time involved in developing and analysing a regulatory proposal should be justified by its positive impact on policy decisions or regulatory quality. Resources allocated to policy development should align with the scale of the problem and its solution. The consideration of a proportionality principle can even be considered as early as the legislative planning phase. An overview of how the proportionality principles has been adopted in some OECD countries is presented in (OECD, 2020[14]).
Enhance the integration of RIA into the earliest stages of policymaking. To fully realise the benefits of ex-ante RIAs, they must be initiated at the beginning of the policymaking process. Ideally, RIA should commence when legislative plans are first proposed. This approach helps maintain the quality of the regulation, ensures consideration of alternative policy options, and guarantees continued alignment with broader policy objectives. RIAs should also be employed as a standard tool throughout the entire regulatory policymaking process to monitor any relevant changes, to the policy environment and assessment, and ensure that policy evaluations remain consistent with overarching objectives.
Clarify the impacts that should be addressed as part of the ex-ante RIA assessment. According to the OECD 2021 Regulatory Policy Outlook, the most commonly observed impacts by countries include competition, the public sector, the budget, small businesses, the environment, gender equality, and social goals.
Ensure that clear and measurable policy objectives are set as part of the regulatory policymaking process (e.g., SMART objectives). This should guide the need of the regulation (or other policy alternatives) and support in measuring its achievements, ex post.
Systemise ex post reviews of regulations.
Adopt the similar parameters of the proportionality principle for ex post reviews.
Integrate programmed reviews as part of Uzbekistan’s ex post review framework. Systematic reviews of regulations should be undertaken on a regular basis to manage the health of the regulatory stock. Adopting measures such as sunset clauses, embedded or thematic-led reviews could help with automatically triggering the review of regulations.
This practice should also encompass all regulations that have been exempted from ex ante RIA as well. In such cases, ex post reviews could be obligatory and conducted within a shorter timeframe (e.g., 1-2 years) after the regulation's introduction.
Align the methodological framework for ex post reviews as closely as possible to the criteria to ex ante assessment. This will help to connect the way regulations are assessed for performance in comparison to what was perceived during their initial assessment.
Align the reviews of laws and regulations at the parliamentary level. The role of parliamentary oversight should be to assess the quality of laws and regulations proposed by the Cabinet of Ministers or the Administration of the President. Strengthening oversight at both levels will also help ensure regulatory consistency and quality across the entire government.
Strengthen stakeholder engagement for inclusive policymaking.
Engagement, consultation and communication with stakeholders should happen throughout the regulatory policymaking process. Stakeholders should even be engaged as far as possible on regulatory proposals that may need to be approved under expedited process. For regulations exempted from ex ante RIAs, the government should, to the greatest extent possible, seek to involve the public, even if it necessitates adjusting the consultation period or involving only a selected group of stakeholders.
Increasing the minimum period of stakeholder consultations to allow for more meaningful engagements with stakeholders. The OECD does not have a mandated period that it advises, international best practice generally suggest a minimum of 30 days for public consultation (OECD, 2018[19]).
Ensure that a diversity of stakeholders is engaged. Diversity of stakeholders should include vulnerable populations, those who are underrepresented and those who may not typically engage in government procedures. The Government should also be proactive in using alternative approaches for meaningful engagement such as interviews, public forums, and focus groups to maximise engagements. As the regulatory oversight body, the MoJ should also aim to ensure that sufficient engagement with stakeholders have been taken.
Enforce that all relevant documents of the regulatory dossier are made available to the public for purposes of advancing transparency and openness. This could include RIA reports, both ex ante and ex post and all versions of the legal text of regulatory drafts.
Maintain clarity in the guidance for stakeholder engagement should be given to ensure there is no ambiguity between when stakeholders should be consulted or who should be consulted.
References
[11] Australian Social Value Bank (n.d.), What is the ASVB?, https://asvb.com.au/asvb-helps-measure-social-impact/what-is-the-asvb/.
[9] Daryo (2023), siat.stat.uz: New dynamic statistics portal of Uzbekistan launched, https://daryo.uz/en/2023/01/07/siatstatuz-new-dynamic-statistics-portal-of-uzbekistan-launched.
[12] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland (n.d.), One-in, one-out principle, https://tem.fi/en/one-in-one-out-principle.
[2] OECD (2023), “Evidence-informed Decision-making in the Czech Administration”, in OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d31a30de-en.
[10] OECD (2022), Regulatory databases and analytical tools to support regulatory analysis, Unpublished.
[7] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
[14] OECD (2020), A closer look at proportionality and thresholds tests for RIA, https://www.oecd.org/regreform/Proportionality-and-threshhold-tests-RIA.pdf.
[1] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en.
[8] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[18] OECD (2020), Regulatory quality and COVID-19: The use of regulatory management tools in a time of crisis, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/regulatory-quality-and-covid-19-the-use-of-regulatory-management-tools-in-a-time-of-crisis-b876d5dc/.
[16] OECD (2020), Reviewing the Stock of Regulation, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a8f33bc-en.
[19] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.
[15] OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en.
[3] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.
[17] OECD (2011), Regulatory Policy and Governance: Supporting Economic Growth and Serving the Public Interest, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264116573-en.
[20] OECD (n.d.), Best Practice Principles on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, forthcoming.
[6] OSCE (2023), Follow-up assessment of the Legislative Process in the Republic of Uzbekistan, OSCE, https://www.osce.org/odihr/560719.
[5] OSCE (2019), Preliminary Assessment of the legilsative process in the republic of Uzbekistan, OSCE Office for Democratic Insitution and Human Rights, https://legislationline.org/taxonomy/term/24054.
[13] Trnka, D. and Y. Thuerer (2019), “One-In, X-Out: Regulatory offsetting in selected OECD countries”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d71764-en.
[4] UNDP (n.d.), United Nations Development Programme in Uzbekistan, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/uz/51aed5a8c56ca6f99bb7b6d13e33ead5f217c1899fc8abe04a40ab75dbb32f47.pdf.
← 1. Republic of Uzbekistan (2018). “On approval of the concept for improving regulatory activities.” Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/3858812.
← 2. Republic of Uzbekistan (2020). “On Measures to Improve the Business Environment in the Country by Introducing a System of Revision of Obsolete Legislative Documents.” Available at: https://lex.uz/ru/docs/-5019106.
← 3. Republic of Uzbekistan (2021). “About Measures to Further Improve the System of Regulatory Impact Assessment System.” Available at: https://lex.uz/uz/docs/5331912#5333236.
← 4. Republic of Uzbekistan (2021). “Law on Normative Legal Acts.” Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/5695915.
← 5. It should be noted that Article 4 of the ZRU-682 contains information about the bodies and officials who have the right to adopt regulatory legal act. Such bodies are the chambers of the Oily Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the President of the Republic Uzbekistan, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, ministries and departments, and local government bodies.
← 6. See: Uzbekistan: Follow-up Assessment of the Legislative Process (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 7. Minister of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2021). “On Approval of Methods and Report Forms for Assessing the Regulatory Impact of Draft Normative Legal Documents and Adopted Normative Legal Documents.” Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/5350096#.
← 8. Republic of Uzbekistan. (2021). "Law on Parliamentary Control." Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/2929475.
← 9. Available at: https://data.gov.uz/.
← 10. Available at: https://siat.stat.uz/.
← 11. A similar assessment is mentioned in (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 12. A similar assessment was also observed in (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 13. Most OECD countries continue to have a strong focus on analysing the economic impacts of regulatory impacts. That said, policymakers in OECD countries have increasingly started to drive their attention to address impacts related in domains of the environment, social goals, sustainable development and gender equality. See the OECD’s Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 for more information: https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
← 14. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound.
← 15. In accordance to paragraph 45 of PP-5025, it details that in relation to the law, a review must occur after five years from the date of its entry into force and thereafter every five years by the responsible state body and committees of the Chambers of the Oily Majlis. With respect to by-laws, after three years from the date of their entry into force. The note on at least one year was mentioned in feedback from the Ministry of Justice.
← 16. At the time of drafting this report: Republic of Uzbekistan (2019). “On measure to improve the efficiency of implementation of legislative acts on the Basis of Modern Legal Monitoring” see: https://www.lex.uz/uz/docs/5697369 was still in force. The resolution became invalid following the fact-finding period of this review and in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated August 16, 2024 No. DP-111, see: https://www.lex.uz/uz/docs/7073422.
← 17. This is mentioned under goal 80 of the “Uzbekistan 2030” Strategy as shared with the OECD team as part of this review.
← 18. See (OECD, 2020[18]) for examples of how this was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
← 19. A similar assessment is made in (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 20. A related assessment is made in (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 21. Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 20.02.2024 No PP-75 "On additional measures to further increase the role of laws in the regulation of public relations and the quality of the rule-making process".
← 22. Uzbek officials note that conclusions from alternative assessments of regulatory impact, prepared by participants in public discussions, are to be considered by the relevant state bodies. However, it is important to note that this practice has not yet been observed in Uzbekistan.
← 23. A related assessment is mentioned in (OSCE, 2023[6]).
← 24. A similar assessment is mentioned in (OSCE, 2023[6]).