Advertisement

Development of an RIA Coordination System with a Focus on SME and Start-Ups

  • Christoph Müller
  • André Nijsen
Chapter
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 20)

Abstract

Measuring compliance costs of businesses like administrative burden is hot stuff, from scientific view point as well from policy praxis. Also, the number of persons involved has increased considerably from a small inner circle of scientist and ministerial experts to rather big numbers of politicians, public officers and private consultants, specialized in public advisory. Almost by consequence, the debate about concepts, definitions and methodology starts again, every time new participants are joining the debate.

In the debates, there are mostly two key questions. First, are there arguments to introduce the public goals of regulations in the measurements or could the measurement be restricted to the costs of the regulated parties (businesses, citizens etc.) only? Second, which methodology is most appropriate to measure benefits and costs of regulations?

This chapter tries to bring more transparency in order to stimulate a more impartial discussion about the topic deregulation and its consequences. Important elements of this transparency are an adequate categorization of the separate cost and benefit effects, a systematic evaluation of these cost and benefit effects, and finally, an evaluation of the available techniques/methodologies. Such transparency could be the guidance for all who are involved in the law making process and the measurement of compliance effects.

Keywords

Norm Addressee Cost Effect Compliance Cost Regulate Business Administrative Burden 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bertelsmann Foundation (2006): Das Standard – Kosten – Modell, GüterslohGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertelsmann Foundation, Kay, R. (2006): Draft: Handbuch zur Messung von Bürokratiekosten – Die Anwendung des Standard-Kosten-Modells in Deutschland, GüterslohGoogle Scholar
  3. DGME – Mesures et réduction des charges administratives, 2007Google Scholar
  4. Empter, S., Frick, F., and Vehrkamp, R. (Hrsg., 2005): Auf dem Weg zu moderner Regulierung – eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, GüterslohGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer, T. (2006): The SCM Scan Brandenburg, presentation by the Bertelsmann Foundation, 27.06.06, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Fueglistaller, U., Schliesser, J., and Federer, S. with BDO VISURA (2007): Administrative Belastung von Kleinunternehmen – Analyze, Herausforderungen und Chancen, SolothurnGoogle Scholar
  7. GEM Report (2006): Authors: Sternberg, R., Brixy, U., and Hundt, C., Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – Unternehmensgründungen im weltweiten Vergleich, Länderbericht Deutschland 2006, Hannover / Nürnberg, März 2007Google Scholar
  8. Hedström, J. (2007): Cutting red tape for business, Stockholm, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill, K. (2006): The SCM in Great Britain, presentation by the Bertelsmann Foundation, 27.06.06, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Hopkins, T. D. (1997): Developing general indicators of regulatory costs, in: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Best Practices in OECD countries, OECD/PUMA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. Jann, W. (2006): Die Deutschen können schlecht mit Unsicherheit umgehen, in: F.A.Z., 29.05.2006, no. 123, p. 15Google Scholar
  12. Kip Viscusi, W. (1997): Improving the analytical basis for regulatory decision-making, in: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Best Practices in OECD countries, OECD/PUMA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Kip Viscusi, W. (1997): Improving the analytical basis for regulatory decision-making, in: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Best Practices in OECD countries, OECD/PUMA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Merk, R. (Hrsg., 2005): Bürokratieabbau und Bürokratiekostenmessung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Strategien und Modelle unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ausländischer Erfahrungen, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  15. Ministry of Finance Legislative Burden Department the Netherlands (2004): The Standard Cost Model – A framework for defining and quantifying administra-tive burdens for businessesGoogle Scholar
  16. Mishan, E.J. (1998): Cost–Benefit Analysis (fourth edition), Unwin Hyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Nijsen, A.F.M. and N. Vellinga (2002): Mistral®, A Model to Measure the Administrative Burden of Businesses, Research Report H200110, EIM, Zoeter-meer Google Scholar
  18. Nijsen, A.F.M., van der Hauw, P.A., and Regter, G. (2005a): Kosten van inhoudelijke verplichtingen voor het bedrijfsleven; Definitie en ontwikkeling meetmethode, ZoetermeerGoogle Scholar
  19. Nijsen, A.F.M., van der Hauw, P.A., and Regter, G. (2005b): Handleiding meetinstrument, inhoudelijke nalevingskosten bedrijfsleven’ – Stappen, vragenlijst en toelichting, ZoetermeerGoogle Scholar
  20. Nijsen, A.F.M. and Regter, G. (2006): Nalevingskosten Geldtransactiekantoren; Onderzoek Wet inzake de Geldtransactiekantoren, ZoetermeerGoogle Scholar
  21. SCM Network (2006 Internet): International Standard Cost Model Manual – Measuring and reducing administrative burdens for businessesGoogle Scholar
  22. World Bank Group (2007): Review of the Dutch Administrative Burden Reduction ProgramGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Sankt GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations