An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU

Governments throughout the world are requiring greater use of economic analysis as a way of informing policy decisions. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of impact assessment in the European Union, using US assessments as a benchmark. We find that recent EU impact assessments include more economic information than they did in the past, although important items are still missing. We also provide evidence that the quality of EU impact assessment increases with the expected cost of a proposal. Furthermore, we find that the quality of EU assessments that report high total costs is similar to that of US assessments.     

Leiden Nutztiere unter ihren Haltungsbedingungen? – Zur Ermittlung von Leiden in Tierschutzstrafverfahren

Natur und Recht - Bei landwirtschaftlich genutzten Tieren werden strafrechtlich relevante Leiden infolge einschränkender Haltungsbedingungen regelmäßig verkannt. Grund dafür ist...     

Assessing the national 55 m.p.h. speed limit

This paper evaluates the desirability of the new national speed limit using tools of normative and positive economic analysis. The theoretical case for a speed limit is analyzed, and it is concluded that externalities in driving may justify the use of a speed limit, among other policies. The principal costs and benefits of the present speed limit are then discussed, and available data are used in order to suggest the reasonable orders of magnitude of costs and benefits. A number of conceptual and empirical limitations of the analysis are emphasized. Finally, several alternatives to the national speed limit are noted.     

Are There Methods of Reasoning on ‘Meta‐Legislation’? The Interpretation of Legislative Competence Norms within the Methodology of European Constitutional Law

Legislative competence norms are paradigmatic elements of European constitutional law and the supranational, post‐federal era. The article aims to address legislative competence norms from the viewpoint of methodology by considering significant features of reasoning on European legislative competence norms. The discussion will be based on understanding legislative competences as ‘meta‐legislation’. That concept encompasses a substantive rather than formalistic, and a politically informed rather than strictly positivist account of legislative competences and their methodology. Against that background, the interpretation of competence norms is assessed. Subsequently, the process of interpretation is discussed according to judicial practice, constitutional theory and general legal methodology. A consideration of the significance of the—usually vast—wording of competence norms completes that discussion. Finally, consequences about the political inclusiveness of interpreting competence norms and the issue of ‘clarity’ are drawn. A conclusion summarises the results.