Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are used to assess the potential impact of new regulations, both positive and negative. It provides decision makers with crucial information on whether and how to regulate to achieve public policy goals. In doing so, they help countries make policies that are smarter, simpler and more streamlined and help governments to take clear and transparent decisions, building public confidence in regulatory policy and public institutions. When regulating and implementing policies on complex challenges such as climate change and AI, RIAs can help decision makers by identifying different pathways and highlight the trade-offs of the various approaches. The OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) survey measures the quality of RIA systems for both primary laws and subordinate regulations in OECD countries on a scale of 0 to 4.
On average across OECD countries the quality of RIA systems for primary laws improved from 2.1 in 2014 to 2.3 in 2024 (Figure 8.4). On average, countries perform better in the areas of methodology (scoring 0.65 out of 1 on average across the OECD) and systematic adoption of RIA (average score of 0.76). Countries perform worse on transparency (average score of 0.53) and least well on oversight and quality control (0.40). Over this period, 22 of the 33 countries with data available (67%), and the EU, have improved their RIA practices. The main areas of progress have been in systematic adoption and transparency. For instance, new guidance issued by Finland and the Netherlands added requirements to consider a broader range of impacts. Lithuania increased its emphasis on the need for policy makers to monitor the impact of decisions.
The average score across the OECD on RIA for subordinate regulations has also improved over the past decade, from 1.9 in 2014 to 2.2 in 2024 (Figure 8.5). On average, countries perform better in the areas of methodology (average score of 0.58 out of 1 across the OECD) and systematic adoption of RIA (average score of 0.71). Countries perform worse on transparency (average score of 0.50) and on oversight and quality control (0.43). Since 2014, there have been improvements in RIA for subordinate regulations in 20 of the 35 countries with data available (57%), and also in the EU. The increases are mainly due to improved oversight and quality control, with some progress in systematic adoption. For example, Chile, Greece and Latvia have significantly expanded their RIA frameworks to address a wider range of concerns, including gender equality, social goals and economic impacts.
Impact assessments are required in an increasing number of OECD countries across all areas of impact (Figure 8.6). The most frequently assessed areas are budgets and competition, both of which have to be evaluated for at least some regulations in 35 countries, followed by impacts on the public sector, small businesses and the environment (required in 34 countries each). The least commonly required areas of assessment are into impacts on sustainable development (28 countries) and regional areas (26 countries), although the number of countries considering these impacts has risen since 2014.
