Reduction of Compliance Costs: An International Perspective

Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 20)


In an increasing number of countries, policies have been started to reduce administrative compliance costs. Also, at the level of the EU, such initiatives have been taken. This chapter puts in picture an international comparison of mainly European countries regarding administrative compliance costs and reduction policies. We focus here on compliance costs for the business sector. In this chapter, we describe the reduction policies and compliance costs, and explain this with the role of the regulatory state and the role of the market and institutions.

Data on these issues is hard to find. We have used several proxy data to analyze the relative position of mostly EU-member countries regarding compliance costs and reduction policies and its development over time. We reflect on these data, and relate them to certain theoretical notions on welfare state arrangements and institutional change. Finally, concluding and contemplative remarks will be made.


Welfare State Administrative Cost Compliance Cost Regulatory Reform Reduction Policy 


  1. Aoki, M. (2001) Towards a Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardhan, P. K. (2005) Scarcity, Conflicts, and Cooperation: Essays in the Political and Institutional Economics of Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boeheim, M., Renda, A., Leo, H., Weijnen, T., Unterlass, F., Coletti, P. and Schratzenstaller, M. (2006) WiFo and CEPS for the European Commission, Final Report. Pilot Project on Administrative Costs. Vienna/Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. Bowles, S. (1998) Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions. Journal of Economic Literature. March, vol. 36, pp. 75–111.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H-J. (2002), Breaking the Mould – An Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to the Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and the State, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 26, no. 5.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, H-J. and Evans, P. (2000) The Role of Institutions in Economic Change, paper presented at the workshop on ‘The Other Canon in Economics’, 15–16 August, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  7. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (2004), Reducing the administrative costs in the European Union. August 2004.Google Scholar
  8. EIM (2002) Administrative lasten. Strategisch akkoord 2002. EIM. September 2002.Google Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princetonn NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (2005a), Impact assessment guidelines, June 2005.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2005b), Implementing the Community Lisbon program: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment, October 2005.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2006a), First progress report on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment, November 2006.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (2006b), Pilot project on administrative costss. prepared by WiFo and CEPS for the European Commission, DG Enterprise, December 2006.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2006c), Strategic review of better regulation in the European Union, November 2006.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2007), Action Program for Reducing Administrative Costs in the European Union, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, M. (2003) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flemish Government (2006), The development of indicators for regulatory management. Dienst Wetmatigheid (Flemish Governmental agency). 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Gelauff, G.M.M. and Lejour, A,M. (2006) A. Industrial Policy and Economic Reforms Papers No. 1, The New Lisbon StrategyAn Estimation of the Economic Impact of Reaching Five Lisbon Targets (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis), January 2006, based Kox, H., 2005.Google Scholar
  19. Gönenç, R., Maher, M. and Nicoletti, G. (2000), The Implementation and the Effects of Regulatory Reform: Past Experience and Current Issues, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 251, OECD Publishing. Paris, doi:10.1787/413754754615.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton, W. H. (1919) The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory. American Economic Review. March, vol. 9, pp. 309–318.Google Scholar
  21. Hodgson, G. M. (1988) Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hodgson, G. M. (1998) The Approach of Institutional Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 36 (March), pp. 166–192.Google Scholar
  23. Interdepartementale Projectdirectie Administratieve Lasten (Interdepartmental Direction on administrative costs) (2003), Meten is Weten. Handleiding voor het definiëren en meten van administratieve lasten voor het bedrijfsleven., December 2003.Google Scholar
  24. IOO (Institute for Research on Governmental expenditures) (2007), Verinnerlijking administratieve lasten. Overkoepelend rapport meting 2006. March 2007.Google Scholar
  25. North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nijsen, A. (2003) Dansen met de octopus. Een bestuurskundige visie op de informatieverplichtingen van het bedrijfsleven in de sociale rechtsstaat (Dancing with the Octopus. A Public Administrative Vision at the Information Requirements of the Private Sector in a Social State), Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  27. OECD (2002) OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries. From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. OECD (2003a) From Red Tape to Smart Tape. Administrative Simplification in OECD Countries. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2003b) The Political Economy of Regulatory Reforms: Telecoms in the Southern Mediterranean. Paris: OECD Development Centre, November.Google Scholar
  30. OECD (2004) OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform. Germany. Consolidating Economic and Social Renewal. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. OECD (2005) Economic Policy Reforms. Going for Growth 2005. Paris: OECD, 2005.Google Scholar
  32. OECD (2006a) Cutting Red Tape. National Strategies for Administrative Simplification. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. OECD (2006b) Better Regulations – Simply Explained. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  34. OECD (2006c) Economic Policy Reforms. Going for Growth 2006. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. OECD (2007b) Cutting Red Tape. Comparing Administrative Costs across Countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. OECD (2007c) Cutting Red Tape. Administrative Simplification in the Netherlands. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  37. OECD (2007d) Economic Policy Reforms. Going for Growth 2007. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  38. Przeworski, A. (2004) Some Historical, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Identifying Effects of Political Institutions. New York: Department of Political Science, New York University.Google Scholar
  39. Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek (Regioplan policy research) (2002) Impact-onderzoek Actal. October.Google Scholar
  40. Research voor beleid (Research for Policy) (2007) Inventarisatie regeldruk coalitieakkoord Balkenende IV. May.Google Scholar
  41. Rutherford, M. (2001) Institutional Economics: Then and Now, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 15, no. 3 (Summer), pp. 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmid, A. A. (2005) An Institutional Economics Perspective on Economic Growth, Paper was Prepared for the Seventh International Workshop on Institutional Economics, University of Hertfordshire, UK, June 22–24.Google Scholar
  43. Samuels, W. J. (1971) The Interrelations Between Legal and Economic Processes. Journal of Law and Economics. vol. 14, October, pp. 435–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tang, P., and Verweij, G. (2004), Reducing the administrative costs in the European Union, CPB Research memorandam 93.Google Scholar
  45. TILT (2006) Verschillen tussen de WBP en Richtlijn 95/46/EG en de invloed op de Administratieve lasten-en Regeldruk. TILT – Centrum voor Recht, Technologie en Samenleving Universiteit van Tilburg. June 2006.Google Scholar


  1. Website Dutch Ministry of Finance (visited September 2007–January 2008)
  2. Website SCM Network: (visited September 2007–January 2008)
  3. Website EC: (visited September 2007–January 2008)
  4. Website International Monetary Fund: [visited December 2007–January 2008]
  5. Website World Bank: [visited December 2007–January 2008]

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations