OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit

Criterion 5. Long-term vision

Governments should adopt policies on regulatory enforcement and inspections: clear objectives should be set and institutional mechanisms set up with clear objectives and a long-term road-map.

Key questions:

• Has an official vision, strategy and/or legal framework been adopted for regulatory enforcement and inspections, setting goals and objectives, key principles?

• Are there mechanisms and practices (including, but not limited to, Impact Assessment) to avoid or limit the occurrence of “Risk-Regulation Reflex” situations and decisions?

• Does the long-term vision have practical effects, and does it guide key reforms, legislation and decisions? Is an institutional framework in place to ensure this, avoid short-term policy swings?

Sub-criterion 5.1. An official vision, strategy and/or legal framework has been adopted for regulatory enforcement and inspections, setting goals, objectives and key principles

For the inspections and enforcement system to properly develop, it needs a long-term framework with clear goals and principles, to shield it from short-term, conflicting priorities. This can be adopted in different ways – government programme, legislation, etc., but it should be sufficiently strong and stable to play its role. This document should include principles, goals and objectives for the overall system.

• Evidence: official vision, strategy document or other framework

Sub-criterion 5.2. Mechanisms and practices (including, but not limited to, Impact Assessment) to avoid or limit the occurrence of “Risk-Regulation Reflex” situations and decisions

The “Risk Regulation Reflex” is the short description of a phenomenon that is too frequent: rash reactions following some accident or the emergence of a new risk, whereby state authorities urgently adopt new regulations, inspections and enforcement measures, without proper consideration of the extent of the risk, the adequacy of the proposed solutions and their costs. The “reflex” is driven by political considerations, the need “to be seen doing something”, and produces major costs, unintended negative consequences etc. A good, risk-based inspections and enforcement system needs to be protected from such “reflex” decisions. This includes, of course, Impact Assessment mechanisms (which apply to the production of new regulations), but should be complemented by measures (in law, government programmes, practices etc.) that also exclude “Risk Regulation Reflex” responses in the inspection and enforcement sphere (which could mean suddenly deciding e.g. universal inspections in a given sector following some accident, without consideration of data, risks etc.).

• Evidence: official policy or government vision on managing risk, responding to incidents and crises

Sub-criterion 5.3. The long-term vision has practical effects, informs key reforms, legislation and decisions. An institutional framework is in place to ensure this and avoid short-term policy swings

Having an official vision or strategy is not sufficient if it is not translated into practice. It is crucial that the principles and goals stated in the framework document are respected when new legislation is adopted, institutional changes decided upon, or strategic decisions made within inspecting structures. To this aim, it is helpful to have a dedicated institution in charge of promoting the implementation of the strategy, helping inspecting structures in understanding and applying it, and ensuring that it is taken into account in new legislation, reforms etc.

• Evidence: institutional mechanism in place to ensure implementation of long-term vision or strategy