Illuminating
motivations for
RIA by
observing
analytical tool
use?
John Turnpenny
Linking Impact Assessment Instruments with Sustainability Expertise
School of Political, Social &
International Studies
University of East Anglia, UK
Types of research on policy appraisal
generally (including RIA):
1: system design
2: system performance
3: impact of/on political context
4: on motivation
[Turnpenny, J.; Radaelli, C.; Jordan, A.; Jacob, K.
(2009) The policy and politics of policy appraisal:
Emerging trends and new directions. Journal of
European Public Policy 16(4), pp. 640-653]
Focus on Type 4: so…why appraise?
So what is Regulatory Impact Assessment?
“A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is a
policy tool that assesses the impact, in
terms of costs, benefits and risks of any
proposed regulation that could affect
businesses, charities or the voluntary
sector”
(UK HM Treasury Green Book, 2003)
3
Some motivations for RIA…
•Evidence-based policy making
•Reducing regulatory costs
•Political control of bureaucracy (or other
actors)
•Modernising the state
•Technocratic instruments
•Enhancing transparency
•Norm following (e.g. emulating best practice)
•Political symbolism
4
Policy appraisal in practice – and what might
it reveal about motivations?
The case of analytical tools
Policy appraisal in practice – and what might
it reveal about motivations?
The case of analytical tools
‘techniques developed in the fields of economics,
mathematics, statistics, operations research and systems
dynamics… [that seek] to provide decision-makers with
advice on the formulation of public policy’ (Jenkins-Smith
1990, p. 11) which are applied within formal policy appraisal
systems
Policy appraisal tools
• Simple tools
• Monetary assessment tools (e.g. CBA)
• Scenario analysis
• Multi-criteria analysis
• Stakeholder analysis
• Modelling tools
• Physical assessment tools
• (No tools)
Collaborators
 Work led by

John Turnpenny, Andrew Jordan, Camilla Adelle
(UEA, Norwich)
 Contributions from






8
Sabine Weiland (Freie Universitat Berlin);
Hanna Kuittinen (Tecnalia, Bilbao);
Petrus Kautto; Sanna-Riikka Saarela (SYKE, Helsinki);
Stephan Bartke (UFZ, Leipzig);
Lars Ege Larsen (Aarhus University)
Thomas Bournaris; Christina Moulogianni (AUTH,
Thessaloniki)
 Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Poland,
UK, COM
 Funded under the FP7 ‘LIAISE’ Network
1) What does guidance say
about WHY appraisals are
done?
9
2) And what are the tool use
patterns in practice?
1
0
Percentage of cases using certain types of tools
Average Simple
PA
MA
Model
Other
No tools
length
1
1
Cyprus
14pp
0
0
0
0
0
100
Finland
2.5pp
16
0
18
2
4
66
Greece
17 pp
19
0
14
0
0
78
Percentage of cases using certain types of tools
Average Simple
PA
MA
Model
Other
No tools
length
1
2
Denmark 2.5pp
68
4
56
12
2
28
Ireland
13pp
33
0
45
6
0
39
Poland
7pp
60
0
40
0
5
30
Percentage of cases using certain types of tools
Average Simple
PA
MA
Model
Other
No tools
length
1
3
COM
84pp
96
4
44
18
8
4
UK
38pp
60
0
92
16
10
4
3) Confronting tool use practice
with guidance motivations
1
4
Some Questions for us:
1) What are the implications of these
observations? Particularly:
2) To what extent is it possible to
‘improve’ analytical tool use, given their
use may be indicative of underlying
priorities?
1
5
Feel free to email:
j.turnpenny@uea.ac.uk
[Research will appear in
forthcoming edited book on
‘Tools in Policy Formulation’]
1
6