Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate

Abstract

This article analyses the complex relationship between impact assessments (IAs) of all types (such as comprehensive, regulatory, economic, social or environmental IAs) and their governance environment, using an analytical framework based on the concepts of governance styles and metagovernance. It is argued that each governance system builds on specific values, traditions and history and produces specific mixtures of hierarchical, network and market styles of governance (with or without an explicit metagovernance approach). Although governance can be considered as a non-normative perspective on polity and politics, the normative dimension of governance practice results in, for example, conflicting convictions about which type of knowledge or ‘evidence’ is valid for IA processes. This is particularly relevant because IAs have an important role in improving the knowledge base of governance. The concrete governance system in a specific country or other administrative entity influences the design and governance of IA systems positively or negatively, which leads to a variety of challenges. The conclusion is drawn that understanding the governance context and its dynamics can help improving IA governance.

Keywords::

• impact assessment
• governance
• hierarchical governance
• network governance
• market governance
• metagovernance
• EIA
• SEA

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the IAPA peer reviewers and the following experts for their valuable comments: Stamatios Christopoulos, Michael Kull, Elena Montani, Margarida Monteiro, Ingeborg Niestroy, Jonathan Parker and Maria Partidário.

Notes

This article elaborates on the two-page Fastips No 4 on Governance (Meuleman 2013b) of IAIA, which was a first attempt to formulate essential relations between IA and governance. The article does not represent the opinion of the European Commission.

^1. ‘Intelligence’ is used here with the American English double meaning of ‘information’ and ‘brainpower’.

^2. Quote from http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/topic/governance, retrieved on 16 June 2014.

^3. Sustainability IA assesses economic, social and environmental impacts and their relations.

^4. With comprehensive IA, I mean here the EU IA system which covers regulatory, environmental, economic and social impacts.

^5.http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/index_en.htm

^6. The Annual Growth Strategy, National Reform Programmes and Country Specific Recommendations, supported by Commission Staff Working Documents.

^7. Article 2.3 of the 7th EAP. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ:L:2013:354:0171:0200:EN:PDF

^8. European Environment Agency (2013).

^9. Political scientists tend to use this (historically disputable) term for the five liberal economies where market governance (in the form of ‘New Public Management’) originated and in which this style became dominant: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and USA (see e.g. Hood 1991).

^10. NUSAP is an acronym for the five categories ‘Numeral’, ‘Unit’, ‘Spread’, ‘Assessment’ and ‘Pedigree’.