This document summarizes a breakout session at an OECD conference on measuring regulatory performance. The session discussed developing more systematic approaches to joint ex-post evaluation across policy instruments. While ex-ante evaluation is undertaken more systematically than ex-post, ex-post approaches vary and oversight is often weak. The session aimed to promote synergies between regulatory and expenditure evaluation, such as common frameworks and transparency norms. Questions focused on practical examples of joint evaluations, their value, and enabling better collaboration between institutions.

1. Breakout session 3
DEVELOPING A MORE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
TO EVALUATION ACROSS POLICY INSTRUMENTS
9th OECD Conference on Measuring Regulatory Performance
Lisbon, 20-21 June 2017
Processes and institutions for effective ex post evaluation
Ronnie DOWNES, Budgeting and Public Expenditures Division, OECD
Christiane ARNDT, Regulatory Policy Division, OECD

2. Discuss systematic approaches to joint
ex-post evaluation across policy
instruments
Aim of session

3. • Ex-ante undertaken more systematically than ex-post
evaluation
• Many different approaches to ex post evaluation (e.g.
programmed reviews such as sunsetting, ad-hoc reviews such
as principles-based reviews or in-depth reviews, ongoing
management such as one-in, one-out or red-tape reduction
targets)
• Many different institutions involved – oversight weak
• Focus more often on burdens than on achievement of
objectives
Ex-post evaluation in regulatory policy

4. • ex ante evaluation is often limited to major
capital projects
• ex post evaluations are more common but
have a limited budgetary impact
• time delays, perceived bureaucratic burden
can limit their relevance as budget tools
• stronger trend towards spending reviews
Evaluation in expenditure policy

5. Source: 2016 OECD Performance Budgeting Survey
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
No.ofspending
reviewsacrossOECD
respondentseachyear
Comprehensive (20-100% of total government spending)
Broad (5-20% of total government spending)
Narrow (0-5% of total government spending)
Spending Reviews are on the rise

6. • common frameworks for assessing
inclusive growth / social impact dimensions?
• common principles for stakeholder engagement?
• clearer institutional roles? (CoG, MOF,
economic service / specialist analytical resources)
• transparency norms for publication of evaluations?
• conduct “comprehensive regulatory review” alongside
“comprehensive expenditure review”?
How to promote synergies between
regulatory and expenditure domains?

7. • Do you have any practical examples for joined ex-
post evaluations across policy instruments? (e.g.
sectoral evaluations) What has worked well and
what didn’t? Why?
• What is the value of joined approaches to ex-post
evaluation across policy instruments?
• What are/could be enabling factors for joined
approaches? How can obstacles be overcome?
What institutional frameworks are necessary?
Questions for discussion