THE DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER REGULATION IN France (1997-2007)

 

 

The quality of regulation (including all types of norms, from primary legislation to standing instructions and procedural rules), has always been a concern of public authorities, they be the Government and central administrations, or bodies with delegated regulatory powers (hereafter designated as “regulators”). Emphasis was however laid on the intrinsic quality of the norm, its place in the hierarchy of texts, rather than on its effects on the economy or other parts of the social body. This legal quality was a foundation of a sound administrative tradition, which had contributed to modernize the country and paved the way to economic success.

Because of the strength and the apparent relevance of this approach, the French administration was not among the first to embrace and put into practice the principles of  Better Regulation as they are understood elsewhere. This is one of the main conclusions of the OECD peer-review of France in 2003, which shows

 

Les politiques réglementaires

  • Syst. juridique structuré mais approche fragmentée de la QR
  • pas de politique de réforme suite au rapport OCDE 1995
  • transposition de certains principes après rapport Mandelkern
  • accent sur la simplification du stock
  • AIR a des résultats mitigés, pas d’organisme central ni de méthodologie.

Les institutions réglementaires

  • un ensemble institutionnel complexe, avec une coordination intergouvernementale significative
  • procédures de gestion structurées, mais qui ne garantissent pas la QR.
  • faiblesse de l’obligation de consultation.
  • pas de contrôle de clarté, de motivation ou d’absence d’étude d’impact.

 

 

However, since the end of the 1990’s two great trends have brought about an awareness of the potential of

-         the movement of ideas on the international scene: OECD principles of regulatory quality in 1995 and 1997 and the development of the Better Regulation agenda after 2002;

-         the “Reform of the State” initiative, which has been aiming, with little party-politics input, to modernize the administrative system along three lines:

o       for tax-payers: a greater accountability to be achieved through output budgeting and performance management of funds

o       for the public at large, a improved consideration for their expectations as to quality of service

o       for the civil servants, increased efficiency of management, with a reappraisal of careers

 

thenne