Annex A. The 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey and the composite indicators

The 2017 Regulatory Indicators Survey

The 2017 Regulatory Indicators Survey is structured around the areas of good practices described in the 2012 Recommendation (OECD, 2012). It supported the collection of data on the content of regulatory policies, as well as on the requirements and practices of countries in the areas of: stakeholder engagement, regulatory impact assessment and ex post evaluation (see details of the survey structure in Figure ‎A.1).

Figure ‎A.1. Structure of the 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey

This is the second edition of the Regulatory Indicators survey, following a first edition in 2014. The Regulatory Indicators Surveys 2014 and 2017 follow up on previous Regulatory Management Surveys carried out in 1998, 2005, and 2008/09. Compared to the Regulatory Management Surveys, the Regulatory Indicators Survey puts a stronger focus on evidence and examples to support country responses, as well as on insights into how different countries approach similar regulatory policy requirements. They are based on an ambitious and forward-looking regulatory policy agenda and designed to track progress in regulatory policy over time. The surveys capture progress in countries that already have advanced regulatory practices, while recognising the efforts of countries that are just starting to develop their regulatory policy. In addition to collecting information on formal requirements, they gather evidence on the implementation of these formal requirements and the uptake of regulatory management practices. The surveys mostly focus on the processes of developing regulations that are carried out by the executive branch of the national government.

The information collected through the 2017 Regulatory Indicators survey is valid as of 31 December 2017. It is envisaged that the survey be updated every three years. Additional questions may be added in the future to expand the scope of the survey. Information from the 2017 survey is analysed against time-series data from the 2014 survey.

The composite indicators

Three composite indicators were developed based on information collected through the survey: one for RIA, one for stakeholder engagement and one for ex post evaluation. Each composite indicator is composed of four equally weighted categories (Figure ‎A.2):

  • Systematic adoption which records formal requirements and how often these requirements are conducted in practice;

  • Methodology which gathers information on the methods used in each area, e.g. the type of impacts assessed or how frequently different forms of consultation are used;

  • Oversight and quality control records the role of oversight bodies and publically available evaluations; and

  • Transparency which records information from the questions that relate to the principles of open government e.g. whether government decisions are made publically available.

Figure ‎A.2. Structure of composite indicators

Each category is composed of several equally weighted sub-categories built around specific questions in the 2017 OECD Regulatory Indicators Survey. The separate sub-categories are listed in Table ‎A.1.

Table ‎A.1. Overview of categories and sub-categories of composite indicators


Stakeholder engagement

Regulatory impact assessment

Ex post analysis


Consultation open to the general public: during early stages of developing regulations

Consultation open to the general public: during later stages of developing regulations


Methods of stakeholder engagement adopted in early stages of developing regulations

Methods of stakeholder engagement adopted in later-stages of developing regulations

Minimum periods

Use of interactive websites1

Assessment of budget and public sector impacts

Assessment of competition impacts

Assessment of other economic impacts

Assessment of other impacts

Assessment of environmental impacts

Assessment of social impacts

Assessment of distributional effects

Assessment of wider cost (e.g. macroeconomic costs)

Benefits identified for specific groups

Consideration of issues of compliance and enforcement

Costs identified for specific groups


Identify and assess regulatory options

Requirement to identify benefits

Requirement to identify costs

Requirement to identify process of assessing progress in achieving regulation’s goals

Requirement to qualitatively assess benefits

Requirement to quantify benefits

Requirement to quantify costs

Risk assessment

Types of costs quantified

Assessment of costs and benefits

Assessment of achievement of goals

Assessment of impacts

Assessment of consistency with other regulations

Established methodologies and guidance

Systematic adoption

Formal requirements

Stakeholder engagement conducted in practice in early stages of developing regulations

Stakeholder engagement conducted in practice in later stages of developing regulations

Formal requirements

RIA conducted in practice


Use of mechanisms for review including ad hoc reviews

Formal requirements

Ex post evaluations conducted in practice

In-depth reviews

Presence of standing body


Oversight and Quality Control

Oversight and quality control function

Publically available evaluation of stakeholder engagement


Publically available evaluation of RIA

Quality control

Oversight and quality control function

Publically available evaluation of ex post analysis


Transparency of process

Consultations are made open to general public

Consideration and response to stakeholder comments

Availability of information

Responsibility and transparency

Transparency of Process

Ongoing stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement

Transparency of process

1. Following advice from the OECD Steering Group on Measuring Regulatory Performance, the sub-categories “Use of interactive websites during early stages of developing regulations” and “Use of interactive websites during later stages of developing regulations” used in 2014 were merged for the 2018 edition of the composite indicators. Scores for the 2014 composite indicators were adjusted accordingly to ensure over-time comparability.

To ensure full transparency, the methodology for constructing the composite indicators and underlying data as well as the results of the sensitivity analysis to different methodological choices, including the weighting system, has been made available publicly on the OECD website (

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page