Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T23:45:19.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2010

INSA THEESFELD ,
CHRISTIAN SCHLEYER  and
OLIVIER AZNAR
INSA THEESFELD*
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Halle (Saale), Germany
CHRISTIAN SCHLEYER
Affiliation:
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Berlin, Germany
OLIVIER AZNAR
Affiliation:
Cemagref, Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
*Email: Theesfeld@iamo.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Ex-ante impact assessment of agricultural, environmental, and rural policies has become an integral part of political decision-making processes in the European Union. While a variety of agri-environmental modelling tools exists, ex-ante policy assessment tools capturing the institutional dimension are rare and need to be improved. In this paper, we introduce a standardized procedure for ex-ante modelling institutional aspects for policy implementation: the ‘Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment’ (PICA). PICA has been designed as an explorative and flexible, yet formalized methodology that enables policy-makers to identify, at an early stage, potential institutional incompatibilities. After relating PICA to relevant approaches for policy assessment, we elaborate on its four distinct steps, use a core element of the EU Nitrate Directive to illustrate its function, and then provide model validation by means of a test case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 377 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001), ‘Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal’, Politics and Society, 29 (4): 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. (2005), ‘Institutional Analysis and Economic Development Policy: Notes on the Applied Agenda of the Bloomington School. Extending Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne's Outline of the Research Program of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57 (2): 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amblard, L., Aznar, O., Mann, C., Schleyer, C., Theesfeld, I., and Hagedorn, K. (2008), ‘Evaluation and Suggestions for Improvement of the Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment (PICA) and Integration of PICA into the Third Prototype of SEAMLESS-IF’, PD6.5.5.2, SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1985), ‘The Economics of Agency’, in Pratt, J. W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (eds.), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Bäcklund, A.-K., Macombe, C., and Zemek, F. (2007), ‘An Institutional Analysis of European Systems for Impact Assessment’, PD 7.2.2. SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2.Google Scholar
Bakkes, J. A., Bräuer, I., Brink, P., Görlach, B., Kuik, O.J., and Medhurst, J. (2006), Cost of Policy Inaction, Scoping study for DG Environment, Netherlands: Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
Baland, J.-M. and Platteau, J.-P. (1996), Halting Degradation of Natural Resource: Is There a Role for Rural Communities, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1983), ‘A Theory of Competition among Groups for Political Influence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115: 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. (2001), ‘Social Impact Assessment’, European Journal of Operational Research, 128 (2): 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickers, K. and Williams, J. (eds.) (2001), Public Policy Analysis: A Political Economy Approach, Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Blazek, J. and Vozab, J. (2006), ‘Ex-ante Evaluation in the New Member States: The Case of the Czech Republic’, Regional Studies, 40 (2): 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, P. and Coyne, C. (2005), ‘Methodological Individualism, Spontaneous Order and Research Program of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57 (2): 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohne, E. (2008), ‘The Politics of the Ex ante Evaluation of Legislation’, Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung (FÖV) Discussion Paper 42.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. and Hodge, I. (1990), ‘Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 17: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capello, R. and Spairani, A. (2004, August), ‘Ex-ante Evaluation of European ICTs Policies: Efficiency vs. Cohesion Scenarios’, paper presented at the 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association, University of Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
Damania, R., Fredriksson, P. G., and Mani, M. (2004), ‘The Persistence of Corruption and Regulatory Compliance Failures: Theory and Evidence’, Public Choice, 121: 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., and von Raggamby, A. (2007), ‘A Framework for Tool Selection and Use in Integrated Assessment for Sustainable Development’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9 (4): 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (European Commission) (1991), ‘Nitrate Directive. European Council Directive of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources’ (91/676/EEC), Official Journal, L375, 31/12/1991, 0001–0008.Google Scholar
EC (European Commission) (2005), ‘Impact Assessment Guidelines’, SEC 2005(791) (http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/key_docs/sec_2005_0791_en.pdf).Google Scholar
Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., and de Sherbinin, A. (2005), Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship, New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.Google Scholar
Field, A. J. (2007), ‘Beyond Foraging: Behavioural Science and the Future of Institutional Economics’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira, J., Greco, S., and Ehrgott, M. (2005), Multiple Criteria Decision analysis: State of the Art Survey, New York: Springer Science and Business Media, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, K. (2008), ‘Particular Requirements for Institutional Analysis in Nature-Related –Sectors’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 35 (3): 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N. and Splash, C. L. (1993), Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, C., Parker, D., and Zhang, Y.-F. (2003), November), ‘Regulatory Impact Assessment in Developing and Transition Economies: A Survey of Current Practice and Recommendations for Further Development’, paper presented at the Regulatory Impact Assessment Conference, CRC, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Lee, N. (2006), ‘Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice in Integrated Assessments’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26: 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynggaard, K. S. C. (2001), ‘The Farmer within an Institutional Environment: Comparing Danish and Belgian Organic Farming’, Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (1): 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, L. and Colby, B. (2005), ‘Transaction Cost Measurement for Evaluating Environmental Policies’, Ecological Economics, 52 (4): 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ménard, C. (2004), ‘The Economics of Hybrid Organizations’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160: 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. (1991), ‘Agricultural Price Policies and Political Interest Group Competition’, Journal of Policy Modeling, 13: 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. and Bennet, J. (2004), ‘Valuing New South Wales Rivers for use in Benefit Transfer’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48 (1): 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, E. (1978), ‘Neighborhood Preservation: An Analysis of Policy Maps and Policy Options’, in May, J. V. and Wildavsky, A. B. (eds.), The Policy Cycle, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 65–87.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2004), ‘Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation: Methodological Foundations and Operational Consequences’, European Journal of Operational Research, 158: 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, B. F. (2008), ‘Promis and Dismay: The State of Strategic Environmental Assessment Systems and Practices in Canada’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29 (1): 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘Challenges and Growth: The Development of the Interdisciplinary Field of Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paavola, J. and Adger, N. (2005), ‘Institutional Ecological Economics’, Ecological Economics, 53 (3): 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. (2007), The Difference – How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. (1976), ‘Toward a More General Theory of Regulation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1999: 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, J. (2006), ‘Editorial – What's so Special about Sustainability Assessment’, Journal of environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (3): v–x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinovicz, E. and Swinnen, J. (1997), ‘Political Economy of Privatization and Decollectivization of Central and East European Agriculture: Definitions, Issues and Methodology’, in Swinnen, J. (ed.), Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and Eastern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 129–158.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. and Ostrom, E. (1992), ‘Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis’, Land Economics, 68 (3): 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleyer, C., Theesfeld, I., Hagedorn, K., Amblard, L., Aznar, O., and Mann, C. (2007), ‘First Evaluation and Suggestion for Improvement of the Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment (PICA) and Suggestions for Its Integration into the Third Prototype of SEAMLESS-IF’, PD6.5.5.1, SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2005), ‘What is an Institution?’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. N. (2004), ‘Environmental Economics’, in Blume, L. and Durlauf, S. (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (2002), Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (1993), ‘Endogenous Preferences, Environmental Law’, The Journal of Legal Studies, 22 (2): 217–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinnen, J. (1994), ‘A Positive Theory of Agricultural Protection’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takasaki, Y. (2007), ‘Dynamic Household Models of Forest Clearing under Distinct Land and Labor Market Institutions: Can Agricultural Policies Reduce Tropical Deforestation?’, Environment and Development Economics, 12: 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theesfeld, I. (2008), ‘Irrigation Sector in Bulgaria: Impact of Post-Socialist Policy Reforms’, Water Policy, 10: 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, P. and Wolpin, K. (2006), ‘Ex-Ante Evaluation of Social Programs’, PIER (Penn Institute for Economic Research), Working Paper 06–022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnpenny, J. (2008), ‘Are We Nearly There Yet? Lessons for Integrated Sustainability Assessment from EU Environmental Policy Making’, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 3 (1/2): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentinov, V. (2007), ‘Why Are Cooperatives Important in Agriculture? An Organizational Economics Perspective’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (1): 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. (2000), Monetäre Umweltbewertung mit der Contingent Valuation-Methode, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (2004), ‘Transaction Cost Economics and Agriculture: An Excursion’, in van Huylenbroeck, G., Verbeke, W., and Lauwers, L. (eds.), The Role of Institutions in Rural Policies and Agricultural Markets, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. A., Petersen, J. E., and Holl, A. (1999), ‘EU Member State Responses to Agri-environment Regulation 2078/92/EEC – Towards a Conceptual Framework?’, Geoforum, 30 (2): 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar