2. The context for Better Regulation in Croatia

This chapter describes the administrative and legal environment for regulatory reform in Croatia and assesses the communication with stakeholders on strategy and policies. It also looks at the policies, processes and institutions for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of programmes aimed at improving the regulatory environment. The role of e-government in support of regulatory policy and governance is briefly reviewed. Finally, it provides recommendations for Croatia to develop a formal and explicit regulatory policy.

    

Regulatory policy and core principles

Laws and regulations are essential tools governments have at hand to promote societal wellbeing and economic growth. A well-developed regulatory policy – the process governments use to create policies and if necessary regulation – is therefore crucial for a country to achieve its policy objectives. Poorly designed or insufficiently implemented legislation can be ineffective in achieving their objectives while imposing unnecessary costs on citizens and businesses (OECD, 2018[1]).

The objective of regulatory policy is to ensure that regulations are made in the public interest. It addresses the permanent need to ensure that regulations and regulatory frameworks are justified, of good quality and “fit-for-purpose” (OECD, 2010[2]).

Building on this idea, the OECD developed the 2012 Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[3]) (see Box ‎2.1) to advise governments on how to develop explicit, dynamic, and consistent “whole-of-government” policy to pursue high-quality regulation. The Recommendation suggests countries should “commit at the highest political level to an explicit whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality”.

Box 2.1. The 2012 Recommendation of the OECD Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance

The 2012 Recommendation of the OECD Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance provides governments with clear and timely guidance on the principles, mechanisms and institutions required to improve the design, enforcement and review of their regulatory framework to the highest standards; it advises governments on the effective use of regulation to achieve better social, environmental and economic outcomes; and it calls for a “whole-of-government” approach to regulatory reform, with emphasis on the importance of consultation, co-ordination, communication, and co-operation to address the challenges posed by the inter-connectedness of sectors and economies. The Recommendation advises governments to:

  1. 1. Commit at the highest political level to an explicit whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality. The policy should have clear objectives and frameworks for implementation to ensure that, if regulation is used, the economic, social and environmental benefits justify the costs, the distributional effects are considered and the net benefits are maximised.

  2. 2. Adhere to principles of open government, including transparency and participation in the regulatory process to ensure that regulation serves the public interest and is informed by the legitimate needs of those interested in and affected by regulation. This includes providing meaningful opportunities (including online) for the public to contribute to the process of preparing draft regulatory proposals and to the quality of the supporting analysis. Governments should ensure that regulations are comprehensible and clear and that parties can easily understand their rights and obligations.

  3. 3. Establish mechanisms and institutions to actively provide oversight of regulatory policy, procedures and goals, support and implement regulatory policy, and thereby foster regulatory quality.

  4. 4. Integrate Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) into the early stages of the policy process for the formulation of new regulatory proposals. Clearly identify policy goals, and evaluate if regulation is necessary and how it can be most effective and efficient in achieving those goals. Consider means other than regulation and identify the trade-offs of the different approaches analysed to identify the best approach.

  5. 5. Conduct systematic programme reviews of the stock of significant regulation against clearly defined policy goals, including consideration of costs and benefits, to ensure that regulations remain up to date, cost justified, cost effective and consistent, and deliver the intended policy objectives.

  6. 6. Regularly publish reports on the performance of regulatory policy and reform programmes and the public authorities applying the regulations. Such reports should also include information on how regulatory tools such as RIA, public consultation practices and reviews of existing regulations are functioning in practice.

  7. 7. Develop a consistent policy covering the role and functions of regulatory agencies in order to provide greater confidence that regulatory decisions are made on an objective, impartial and consistent basis, without conflict of interest, bias or improper influence.

  8. 8. Ensure the effectiveness of systems for the review of the legality and procedural fairness of regulations and of decisions made by bodies empowered to issue regulatory sanctions. Ensure that citizens and businesses have access to these systems of review at reasonable cost and receive decisions in a timely manner.

  9. 9. As appropriate apply risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication strategies to the design and implementation of regulations to ensure that regulation is targeted and effective. Regulators should assess how regulations will be given effect and should design responsive implementation and enforcement strategies.

  10. 10. Where appropriate promote regulatory coherence through co-ordination mechanisms between the supranational, the national and sub-national levels of government. Identify cross-cutting regulatory issues at all levels of government, to promote coherence between regulatory approaches and avoid duplication or conflict of regulations.

  11. 11. Foster the development of regulatory management capacity and performance at sub-national levels of government.

  12. 12. In developing regulatory measures, give consideration to all relevant international standards and frameworks for co-operation in the same field and, where appropriate, their likely effects on parties outside the jurisdiction.

Source: (OECD, 2012[3]), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2012-recommendation.htm.

An effective regulatory policy is built on three basic components that are mutually reinforcing: it is adopted at the highest political level; contains explicit and measurable regulatory quality standards; and provides for continued regulatory management capacity (OECD, 2002[4]). Most countries have adopted an explicit whole-of-government approach to regulatory policy (see Figure ‎2.1).

In Croatia, a well-functioning legislative framework for regulatory policy has been introduced, but a whole-of-government approach adopted at the highest political level is still missing.

Implementing a whole-of-government approach for regulatory quality is not an easy task and there is no one-size-fits-all recipe that can be applied to all different country contexts. However, important lessons can be learnt from other countries’ experiences with introducing a single policy for regulatory quality at the highest political level (Box 2.2).

Figure 2.1. Adoption of a whole-of-government approach for regulatory quality in OECD countries
Figure 2.1. Adoption of a whole-of-government approach for regulatory quality in OECD countries

Notes: Data for OECD countries is based on the 34 countries that were OECD members in 2014 and the European Union. Data on new OECD member and accession countries in 2017 includes Colombia, Costa Rica, Latvia and Lithuania.

Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Surveys 2014 and 2017, http://oe.cd/ireg.

Box 2.2. Building “whole-of-government” programmes for regulatory quality

Countries considering the introduction of a policy for regulatory quality across the whole of government face the issue of where and how to start the process of embedding regulatory policy as a core element of good governance. An incremental approach has worked in some settings, such as the Netherlands or Denmark, while other countries like the United Kingdom, Australia or Mexico have used a more comprehensive approach.

In Canada, the first whole-of-government policy was introduced in 1999 with the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, which was later replaced by the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulations in 2007, Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management in 2012 and the Cabinet Directive on Regulation in 2018. The latest version of the directive sets out the government’s expectations and requirements in the development, management, and review of federal regulations. It outlines four guiding principles for departments and agencies:

  1. 1. Regulations protect and advance the public interest and support good government: Regulations are justified by a clear rationale in terms of protecting the health, safety, security, social and economic well-being of Canadians, and the environment.

  2. 2. The regulatory process is modern, open, and transparent: Regulations, and their related activities, are accessible and understandable, and are created, maintained, and reviewed in an open, transparent, and inclusive way that meaningfully engages the public and stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples, early on.

  3. 3. Regulatory decision-making is evidence-based: Proposals and decisions are based on evidence, robust analysis of costs and benefits, and the assessment of risk, while being open to public scrutiny.

  4. 4. Regulations support a fair and competitive economy: Regulations should aim to support and promote inclusive economic growth, entrepreneurship, and innovation for the benefit of Canadians and businesses. Opportunities for regulatory co-operation and the development of aligned regulations should be considered and implemented wherever possible.

Source: (OECD, 2010[2]), (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2018[5]).

History of Better Regulation in Croatia

Croatia has made some progress in strengthening its regulatory policy framework in recent years. In 2017, a new RIA law entered into force, simplifying the procedure and significantly shortening the process of assessing the effects of primary laws. Between 2015 and 2017, Croatia already improved its ranking in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business indicator from 71st to 58th (The World Bank, 2019[6]). However, businesses in Croatia still face high administrative and regulatory burdens and based on the distance-to-frontier metric, the ease of doing business in Croatia is still below regional average (Figure ‎2.2).

Figure 2.2. World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index for selected CEE-countries by Distance-to-Frontier Metric, 2019
Figure 2.2. World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index for selected CEE-countries by Distance-to-Frontier Metric, 2019

Note: An economy’s ease of doing business score is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the lowest and 100 represents the best performance.

Source: (The World Bank, 2019[6]), Ease of Doing Business Ranking & Ease of Doing Business Score 2019, http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/doing-business-score.

Croatia has started to introduce countermeasures with the Action Plan on Administrative Burden Reduction that aims at creating investment incentives and providing easier market access, simplifying administrative procedures that weigh on firms operating in Croatia. Estimated cost savings due to the Action Plan amount to HRK 625.9 million with a 12% reduction of administrative burdens for businesses (OECD, 2017[7]). The focus of Croatia’s better regulation efforts continues to be on administrative burden reduction and the objective is to reduce burdens by 21% by 2021 through the implementation of the Action Plan.

Regulatory impact assessment

Until the early 2000s, the regulatory environment in Croatia was perceived as both relatively high cost and high risk. The public administration had almost no experience with assessing the consequences of its actions on businesses and citizens and there was no clear commitment to a systematic impact review of new legislation to ensure that it met the intended objectives. Impacts of amendments to existing legislation were assessed on an ad hoc basis and there was no systematic approach in place.

In 2005, the Croatian government first put a system in place to assess likely impacts of legislation, following an initiative by the Ministry of Finance. At the time, the assessment was limited to impacts on budget, health and environment.

The legal framework for RIA was based on the following legislation:

  • Law on Budget (Official Gazette 87/08) Art.5.3.

  • Decree on Amendments to the Decree of establishing the Government Legislation Office (GLO) (Official Gazette 140/09)

  • Croatian Parliament's Standing Orders (Official Gazette 06/02, 41/02, 91/03, 58/04, 39/08, 86/08) Art.132.1, indented line 2

  • Croatian Government's Standing Orders (Official Gazette 107/00, 24/01, 22/05, 68/07, 10/08, 102/09, 107/09, 140/09, 144/09 consolidated text) Article 27(a) and 27(b)

  • Decision on the Standard methodology form for fiscal impact assessment (Official Gazette 73/08)

  • Decision on the Standard methodology form for environmental impact assessment (Official Gazette 57/07)

  • Decision on the Standard methodology form for social impact assessment (Official Gazette 38/07)

  • Decree on Abolishing the Government’s RIA Coordination Office (Official Gazette 96/09).

At the time, the Croatian government lacked co-ordination and planning capacities necessary to implement a whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality and the high fragmentation of the legal framework for RIA proved to be ineffective. (Malyshev, 2008[8]).

The first attempt to improve the regulatory environment in Croatia followed in 2006 with the regulatory guillotine project HITROREZ (see Box ‎2.3).

Box 2.3. Regulatory guillotine in Croatia

To improve the regulatory environment in Croatia, a short-term statute law revision (regulatory guillotine) project, known by its Croatian acronym as HITROREZ, was launched in 2006. The Government initiative co-founded by USAID and UNDP aimed at counting, reviewing and streamlining business regulations in Croatia.

The regulatory guillotine was conducted in the following phases:

  • First, the government asked all ministries and agencies to prepare inventory lists of their regulations by a certain date. Each administrative body in co-operation with stakeholders from the private sector prepared a complete list of all regulations with an impact on businesses and citizens and submitted the list to the Special Unit of HITROREZ together with all associated forms. The process was overseen by a central body.

  • Then, Government authorities reviewed each business regulation and its associated forms and fees based on standardised criteria and a questionnaire. Each business regulation was assessed with a recommended action: keep, change or cancel. Those identified as unnecessary, outdated or illegal were excluded from the list.

The special Unit for HITROREZ reviewed each business regulation taking into account feedback from government authorities and the business community, as well as comments from consultations with other relevant stakeholders. The Unit developed final recommendations and presented it to the government of Croatia. As a result, 27% of business regulations were eliminated and 30% were simplified.

Source: OECD SIGMA (2014), Review of Policy on RIA and Legislative Drafting Capacities of the Republic of Croatia; World Bank Group (2010), Better Regulation for Growth (BRG), Governance frameworks and tools for effective governance reform. Tools and processes to review existing legislation.

The World Bank (IFC) concluded that HITROREZ led to USD 66 million in annual savings for the Croatian economy (OECD SIGMA, 2014[9]). However, the project was later criticised for merely “cutting dead wood” (removing regulations that are not in force anymore and have no real economic impact) and encouraging ministries to exaggerate the benefits of some regulations. Most importantly, HITROREZ did not prioritise the most burdensome areas of regulation. Nevertheless, the project laid the foundation for a system-wide reform of the RIA process.

With the aim to create a whole-of-government framework for impact assessment co-ordinated from the centre of government, the Croatian government established the Office for Co-ordination of the RIA system in 2007. This undertaking was short-lived, as the office lacked government support in terms of funding and administrative capacity. In 2009, the office was closed due to budgetary cuts and austerity measures taken to combat negative externalities of the global financial crisis to the state budget.

The second significant step towards creating a comprehensive RIA framework was undertaken in 2010 by the Government Legislation Office (GLO). The GLO developed a horizontal strategy with the vision to establish an efficient, independent and sustainable RIA system as support for the Government’s evidence-based decision-making process. The action steps included developing a new RIA system and methodology, building administrative, technical and financial capacities of GLO and key ministries, fostering knowledge and skills on RIA methodology across government by conducting workshops and pilot studies and communicating the strategy and action plan to relevant government bodies, stakeholders and the public.

An OECD SIGMA project in Croatia in 2014 laid the foundation for the future RIA legislative framework (OECD SIGMA, 2014[9]). The framework was further developed during a twinning project conducted together with the United Kingdom and Estonia. The project also supported the GLO in setting up RIA co-ordination mechanisms by building administrative capacities within the GLO and the relevant government bodies.

In 2012, the RIA legislative framework consisted of:

  • RIA Law (in force from 1 January 2012 until 12 May 2018) applied only for primary legislation (laws) proposed by Government

  • RIA Regulation (in force from 22 June 2012 until 9 June 2017)

  • RIA Strategy 2013-15

  • RIA Guidelines were also in force for that period of time as an additional guidance on RIA methodology and process, and have been replaced by the current RIA guidelines as of October 2017.

Three years after the implementation of the 2012 RIA legislative framework, the GLO as the designated co-ordinating body evaluated its effectiveness in the implementation report of the RIA strategy 2013-15. The report assessed the project’s success in achieving its objectives and provided an analytical overview of the 2012 RIA system implementation. The report’s recommendations as well as best practice examples from other EU members and the European Commission inspired the new RIA framework drafted by the GLO subsequently. The goal was to simplify the RIA process and further strengthen the GLO’s quality oversight role in order to support a better law making process.

Currently, RIA is embedded in the Croatian legislative framework by the following legislation:

  • RIA Law (in force as of 13 May 2017) – applies only for primary legislation (laws) proposed by Government

  • RIA Regulation (in force as of 10 June 2017)

  • RIA Strategy 2018 - 2023 (in force as of 21 December 2017)

  • RIA Guidelines, issued by GLO (GLO) in October 2017, as a guidance for implementing RIA methodology and RIA process.1

The new RIA law simplified the procedure and significantly shortened the process of assessing the effects of primary laws. However, the general effects of subordinate regulations, which are the biggest source of administrative burden in Croatia, are not assessed. The law was introduced with an “SME friendly approach” – the assessment of the effects of the draft law on small businesses through the SME Test and the administrative cost estimate by using the SCM plays a significant role. Also, the co-operation between the GLO and the MoE on better regulation issues has been institutionalised within the new legislative framework.

The RIA strategy 2018-2023 sets out the vision of a modern legislative framework for the benefit of civil society and businesses, outlining four strategic goals for further enhancement of the RIA process:

  • Improve regulatory quality by focusing on a proportional RIA process. The new framework emphasises the importance of identifying draft regulations with significant impacts on businesses and citizens by conducting a simplified RIA. These regulations will then have to undergo a full impact assessment in the second stage. This proportionate approach will ensure that the limited analytical capacities for impact assessment are used efficiently to target the most burdensome regulations.

  • Ensure high quality RIAs by conducting regular quality checks of the impact assessments accompanying draft legislation. Periodic evaluations will lead to a gradual increase in the quality of RIAs and therefore of legislative proposals in this period.

  • Increase analytical capacity to effectively assess the impact of regulations in government bodies by providing guidance and training to civil servants responsible for conducting the impact assessments. It is also envisaged to provide further training on the MoE’s SME-test and the SCM methodology.

  • Ensure openness and transparency of the RIA process by releasing RIA documents for consultation with the general public. The new RIA framework complies with laws governing the right of access to information and other regulations and acts concerning public participation in the legislative procedure to ensure that citizens and businesses affected by the regulation can voice their opinion throughout the legislative process.

Transparency, e-government and Better Regulation

The legislative framework for consultations with the general public in the Republic of Croatia is based on the Law on the Right to Access to Information (Official Gazette 25/2013, 85/2015), the RIA Law (Official Gazette 44/2017) and the Code of Practice on Consultation with the public in the process of adopting laws, other regulations and policies (Official Gazette 140/2009).

With adopting the Code, Croatia introduced a set of clear standards and measures for consultations of the public in the process of making new laws and regulations. The code maps out the required duration and publication process of consultations, the regulator’s obligation to respond to consultation comments as well as the co-ordination of consultation procedures among the state bodies.

An important step towards improving the legislative framework for consultations with the public was the adoption of the Law on the Right of Access to Information (Official Gazette No. 25/2013) in February 2013. In accordance with art. 11 of the Law, the bodies in charge of drafting laws and regulations with an impact on citizens and businesses are obliged to conduct an online public consultation for a period of 30 days. The government bodies carry out public consultations by making the draft available on the state central website for consultations with the public, along with the reasons for their adoption, as well as the goals that will be achieved by this consultation. Upon the finalisation of the consultation process, the state administration body is obliged to publish the draft report on the consultation conducted including the justification of acceptance or refusal of each recommendation or proposal submitted by the public. The public consultations report has to be attached to the draft proposal of the bill or by-law according to the Rules of Procedure of the Government (Article 30§4) and the Rules of Procedure of the Croatian Parliament (art. 174§4).

In April 2015, the Government Office for the Cooperation with NGOs launched the central consultation portal e-Savjetovanja. The portal was a significant step towards ensuring the consultation of the general public in the process of adopting laws, by-laws, strategic plans and other acts. Consolidating all open consultations in one place, the portal facilitates commenting on draft legislation for the public and therefore contributes to an improved participation of citizens and all interested social groups in the process of public policy formation.

In May 2017, the Croatian government adopted the e-Croatia 2020 Strategy, including the Action Plan for its implementation, following an EU-initiative on digital growth. The strategy was developed in line with the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) and in co-operation with other ministries, state and public institutions, as well as representatives from businesses and academia. The main objective of the strategy is to ensure more government services can be provided online and citizen’s interaction costs with public administration are reduced.

Despite these significant efforts, the Croatian government does not systematically communicate the benefits and costs of regulatory reform to the general public. This rather happens on an ad hoc basis, for example in the scope of the HITROREZ project, where videos and radio shows were used to inform the public on the issue of administrative burdens and regulatory compliance costs. For the RIA legislative framework 2010-12, the GLO organised several public events to communicate the benefits of RIA and the efforts that were undertaken to introduce impact assessments as part of the legislative process. An overarching communication strategy on regulatory reform has not yet been implemented.

Ex post evaluation of regulatory policy

Evaluating the performance of regulatory policy tools and reform programmes is necessary to identify if regulatory policy is being implemented effectively and if reforms are having the intended impact. This helps to assess where future investments in efforts to improve the regulatory management system should be focused to foster economic growth and societal welfare (OECD, 2014[10]).

Croatia systematically evaluates the performance of regulatory policy tools like RIA and stakeholder engagement. In Croatia, like in a majority of OECD countries, reports are published online on the performance of the RIA system (see Figure ‎2.3, left pane). The Government Legislation Office regularly prepares a report on the implementation of the annual plan of normative activities.2

Figure 2.3. Reports on the performance of regulatory policy tools
Figure 2.3. Reports on the performance of regulatory policy tools

Note: Data is based on 34 OECD member countries and the European Union.

Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Surveys 2014 and 2017, oe.cd/ireg.

Croatia is one of the few countries publishing reports on the performance of its consultation system.3 The Office for Co-operation with NGOs annually prepares a report on the implementation of consultation with the interested public in the procedures for the adoption of laws, other regulations and acts.

Like many better regulation units in OECD countries, the MoE in Croatia has also tracked the total impact measures to reduce administrative burden. The implementation of the Action Plan for administrative burden reduction4 led to estimated savings of HRK 625.9 million with a reduction of administrative burdens of 12%. For more information on the Action Plan on administrative burden reduction, see Chapter 6.

The reports contain recommendations for future improvement of the regulatory management system. The 2013-15 evaluation report of the RIA system suggested to provide training on regulatory impact assessment and improve analytical capacities within the GLO. Shortly after, the MoE organised trainings for civil servants on how to assess impacts of regulation on small- and medium-sized businesses.

Croatia also closely monitors the World Bank’s “Doing Business” indicators (last mentioned in the Croatian Chamber of Commerce 2019 business climate report). These indicators are used as a benchmark with the aim to improve business conditions in Croatia. In the last years, several measures have been undertaken to improve Croatia’s business environment and in particular to reduce burdens for businesses, for example by introducing the SME-test. While using indicators developed by international organisations can be helpful to identify priority areas for reform, real-life effects of certain measures that help improve the country’s indicator score can be limited (for example, shortening the time needed to register a business by a couple of hours). It is therefore essential to formulate specific reform goals outlining the benefits for society and then evaluate their achievement.

Assessment and recommendations

Croatia has introduced a set of useful and important reforms to strengthen regulatory policy and made a great effort bundling the fragmented legislative framework. The recently introduced RIA law and the law on access to information set out requirements to conduct impact assessments and public consultations. Accompanying guidance documents have been provided to regulators to help them implement practices as set out in the OECD 2012 Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance. The initially highly fragmented legal set-up was consolidated over time. The performance of regulatory policy tools and reform programmes is evaluated regularly and the government’s annual evaluation reports contain recommendations for improvement of the regulatory management system.

While this important regulatory framework has been set up, an overall policy for better regulation is still missing. There is currently no single whole-of-government regulatory policy in place in Croatia and the legislative framework is still fragmented. The lack of a formal and uniform regulatory policy at the centre of government has resulted in ministries and other administrative bodies pursuing their own regulatory reform initiatives in isolation. In addition, implementation of regulatory policy remains a challenge. In practice, tools like RIA are often completed as a box-ticking exercise and a partial lack of oversight over the quality of the process continues to hamper better regulation efforts. The Government of Croatia should go beyond current reforms to further implement better regulation across the whole of government.

The objectives and results of Better Regulation are not systematically communicated to the general public. Rather, the benefits and costs of regulatory reform are communicated on an ad hoc basis. This is due to the lack of a common strategy and coherent action plan, and limits the capacity to gather support and buy-in for reforms across the administration, in parliament and from the general public.

The momentum of regulatory reform should be used to renew the political support for regulatory policy. The Government of Croatia should relaunch Better Regulation to bring evidence-based policy back into focus in Croatia. Maintained political support from both the administration and the political arm is crucial for restarting the process of Better Regulation. In a first step, this political support could be expressed by adopting a whole-of-government policy instrument on regulatory quality. Generating buy-in from stakeholders external to government can help increase the demand for quality regulatory management tools and secure political commitment. Citizens and businesses engaged in the process can provide the information and opinions that the government needs to truly improve policy.

The Croatian government should introduce an explicit and binding whole-of-government policy instrument on regulatory quality with identified objectives and a clear communication strategy. This strategic instrument could take the form of a law or government resolution that would bring together the provisions on better regulation that are currently spelled out in different laws and resolutions. It should have frameworks for implementation to ensure that, if regulation is used, the economic, social and environmental benefits justify the costs, the distributional effects are considered and the net benefits are maximised (OECD, 2012[3]). This framework could be realised as a high-level strategic plan outlining the specific responsibilities for different actors in the regulatory process and ensure co-ordination between the various institutions such as the Government Legislation Office, the Ministry of the Economy and the Office for Co-operation with NGOs. The strategy could also include a renewed political commitment from the centre of government (e.g. Cabinet) and have a clear communication strategy to help engage the public in the scrutiny of the regulatory process. The realisation of this policy should be supported through a high-level institutional body to oversee the implementation and co-ordination of regulatory policy in Croatia.

References

[8] Malyshev, N. (2008), The Evolution of Regulatory Policy in OECD Countries, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_37421_1794487_1_1_1_37421,00.html. (accessed on 21 November 2018).

[1] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.

[7] OECD (2017), Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Survey 2017, http://oe.cd/ireg (accessed on 13 March 2019).

[10] OECD (2014), OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, http://www.oecd.org/regreform/framework-for-regulatory-policy-evaluation.htm (accessed on 23 January 2019).

[3] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2012-recommendation.htm (accessed on 7 November 2018).

[2] OECD (2010), Regulatory Policy and the Road to Sustainable Growth, https://www.oecd.org/regreform/policyconference/46270065.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2019).

[4] OECD (2002), Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries: From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264177437-en.

[9] OECD SIGMA (2014), Review of Policy on RIA and Legislative Drafting Capacities Of Republic of Croatia, https://zakonodavstvo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti//2014%20SIGMA%20Izcjesce%20o%20RIA%20EN.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2019).

[6] The World Bank (2019), Ease of Doing Business Ranking & Ease of Doing Business Score, http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/doing-business-score (accessed on 6 May 2019).

[5] Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2018), Cabinet Directive on Regulation, https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/federal-regulatory-management/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html (accessed on 16 January 2019).

Notes

← 1. The current official guidance is based on a RIA guidelines developed under a twinning project (IPA 2012 Strengthening capacity for implementation of RIA Strategy 2013-2015). The results of this project are available online: https://zakonodavstvo.gov.hr/istaknute-teme/ipa-2011-twl-jacanje-kapaciteta-za-provedbu-strategije-procjene-ucinaka-propisa-2013-2015/377.

← 2. For the 2016 report, see https://zakonodavstvo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti//170517%20UZVRH%20Izvjesce%20GPNA2016%20final%202.0.pdf and for the 2013-2015 report, see https://zakonodavstvo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti//160721UZVRH%20Izvjesce%20SPUP%202013-2015%205.1.pdf.

← 3. For the 2017 report, see https://udruge.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20o%20provedbi%20savjetovanja%202017%20-%20usvojeno.pdf.

← 4. Evaluation report of the Action Plan for administrative burden reduction: https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Sjednice/2018/03%20o%C5%BEujak/84%20sjednica%20VRH/84%20-%206.pdf.

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page