Research Report
Ⅰ. Background and Purposes
□ Since the mid-1990s, better regulation has become one of the most important reform areas of public sector modernization in advanced democracies. Increasing the quality of government regulations, improving public participation in regulatory processes and reducing administrative burdens that stem from state regulation are central reform goals.
□ Initially, better regulation policies concentrated primarily on ex- ante evaluations of legislative proposals such as regulatory impact assessments as well as on improving the governance structures of regulatory processes. In the latest reform wave, more attention is paid to approaches focusing on the whole lifecycle of government regulations, including efforts to strengthen ex-post evaluation activities and policy learning.
□ In this context, sunset legislation -an old acquaintance of regulatory reform and deregulation efforts from the 1970s and 1980s- is discussed as one feasible instrument to ensure a systematic ex-post evaluation of regulations.
□ In this study, we give an overview of the theoretical perspectives on sunset legislation. Furthermore, this study describe the empirical experiences with sunset and review clauses in six countries, namely the United States, Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, Switzerland and Germany. Finally, this study discuss successful implementation of sunsetting regulation as an instrument for regulatory reform in our country. To do so, this study systematize an appropriate use as well as a successful institutionalization of sunset legislation could look like.
Ⅱ. Major Contents
□ Sunset clauses have two main characteristics. Implicit in every sunset clause is the “threat of termination” and the creation of an artificial lifecycle for the law or statutory instrument. Sunset clauses contain the action-forcing mechanism of automatic termination in the absence of specific legislative reauthorization.
° It must be noted, however, that the termination of a law or a policy program is only one possible outcome of the sunset process, and perhaps not the most important one. Rather, sunsetting is an instrument that requires periodic review and evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of government functions and programs through the legislative branch.
° Evaluations should result in periodic adjustments and corrections of government programs and laws. The complete elimination of a law or program is more the exception than the rule.
□ Sunset clauses in the United States mainly aimed at improving the parliamentary control of regulatory agencies through the threat of termination. In contrast, in many European countries sunset legislation does not primarily focus on a periodical review of agencies or other state authorities by the parliament, but on a time limitation of laws or statutory instruments aiming at an ex-post evaluation of these regulations on a regular basis.
° The contemporary concept of sunset legislation was first put forward in the United States during the mid-1970s, Originally, in the US context sunsetting was introduced to improve congressional supervision of government, or more specifically to increase congressional control of regulatory agencies.
° Australia has established a comprehensive sunsetting regime for legislative instruments. In recently, United Kingdom is considered a sunsetting in all new regulations. Sunset clauses beginning with regulatory legislation coming into force from April 2011.
° Japan has established it's own review clause, which ex-post evaluation of regulations. Switzerland is considered a frontrunner in establishing a culture of evaluation. But sunset clauses aim at the compensation of knowledge deficits(evidence-based policy-making).
° Germany general sunset provisions are quite popular at Lander level but have never been discussed seriously for the federal level. Nevertheless, in recently, the federal government decided to integrate sunset legislation into its better regulation strategy and to encourage a more systematic use of sunset provisions in the federal lawmaking process.
□ In our country, while government have introduced sunsetting regulation in the past years, the government uses sunset provisions only ad hoc and for selected laws. Nevertheless, in recently, the government decided to sunset legislation into its better regulation strategy and to encourage a more systematic use of sunset provisions in the regulatory reform.
° One important result of this study is that an appropriate institutionalization is important for successful implementation of sunsetting. An appropriate organizational and procedural institutionalization is important for a successful implementation of sunsetting. Furthermore, at least a selective application of sunsetting seems more efffective than a general sunset regime.
° In order to successful implementation of sunsetting regulation, the existing Framework Act on administrative regulations supposed to be amend, and existing expertise in the responsible ministries or agencies should be used for evaluations. Beyond that, it is necessary to establish an interministerial or interagency supporting unit as well as an independent watchdog function.
Ⅲ. Expected Effects
□ This study showed that sunsetting can be innovative tool if accompanied by efforts to strengthen evaluation activities and by appropriate measures for organizational and procedural institutionalization. Furthermore, sunsetting is a feasible instrument to support regulatory reform and to foster the implementation of cross-cutting policy goals. So this example will provide an overview of successful implementation of sunsetting regulation in our country.
□ This study showed that the institutionalized and continuous support of ministries in their evaluation activities (ex-post and ex- ante) and the promotion of public consultation and transparency play a central role in regulatory reform. So this example will provide an overview of a rationaler implementation of sunsetting regulation in our country.