We live at a time where Smart is better than Better, and Better was not Smart enough. This is not a dull pun. It actually reflects the status in which regulatory reform finds itself nowadays. To many observers, the switch from Better to Smart just reflects the attempt to instil renewed commitment and faith in an agenda, which in some (European) countries has maybe exhausted its thrust. The European Commission also admits candidly that the choice of the new term largely serves as a refreshing slogan. But limiting it to a branding change, with little consideration of its content, would be a mistake in appreciation. And a missed opportunity. We do need “Smart Regulation” – and not only in the Commission. Above all, we need smart regulators.

This section regularly examines Regulatory Impact Assessment (IA) at three levels: the EU, theMember States and internationally. Contributions aim to cover aspects such as the interface between IA and risk analysis, looking atmethodologies as well as legal and political science-related issues. Contributions are meant to report and critically assess recent developments in the field, develop strategic thinking, and make constructive recommendations for improving performance in IA processes.

A Law on Administrative Procedure (LAP) is an essential institutional feature of democratic and effective governments. It is a general law on executive law-making, setting out how laws and regulations should be made. The need for a LAP at EU-level is growing – to counter the EU's legitimacy deficit and to make the regulatory process more predictable and robust. At the same time, the EU regulatory “machine” faces new challenges and pressures, as it seeks to implement highly complex (risk management) regulation. Greater regulatory effectiveness depends on more transparency, evidence quality standards and participation. As such, an EU LAP appears to be the natural culmination of the EU Smart Regulation agenda. Since the European Parliament in 2013 called for the Commission to adopt a LAP-related legislative proposal, the debate has gained in visibility and political salience. This article makes the case for an EU LAP for the EU institutions, citizens and businesses – provided the Law enshrines the four key principles of good administration (transparency and consistency; public participation; public record; and accountability); it establishes clear and legally binding procedural standards; and it covers as a principle also rule-making and adjudication decisions by all EU institutions and bodies involved in the preparation, adoption, implementation and repeal of secondary legislation.

This section regularly examines Regulatory Impact Assessment (IA) at three levels: the EU, the Member States and internationally. Contributions aim to cover aspects such as the interface between IA and risk analysis, looking at methodologies as well as legal and political science-related issues. Contributions are meant to report and critically assess recent developments in the field, develop strategic thinking, and make constructive recommendations for improving performance in IA processes.

The Swiss Federal Council (FC, the Swiss government) published a report on reducing administrative burdens on business in August 2011, in which it addressed also the performance of Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) at the federal level. The report reviews the measures undertaken by the FC since 2007 and sketches initiatives to be launched throughout the next four years. Administrative simplification and the reduction of regulatory costs have gained on relevance in the Swiss policy and political debate in the past few months – not least as a part of the campaign for the national political elections held in October 2011, with the economic crisis as a background. A national political party has launched a popular initiative against over-bureaucratisation, and the issue is brought forward by a number of stakeholders too.

The August 2011 report also fits into a wider debate about the legitimacy of RIA systems and the right balance between their effectiveness and efficiency. This brief note draws from a comprehensive evaluation of the system of in-depth RIAs in Switzerland, which supported the government's report and developed some avenues for further investigating those dimensions.