Abstract
We draw on the Institutional Grammar Tool's rule types to empirically analyze the design of four major procedural regulatory instruments in the 27 member states of the European Union and the UK. They are: consultation, regulatory impact assessment, freedom of information, and the Ombudsman. By adopting the Institutional Grammar Tool as conceptual lens we end up with a single measurement template applicable to a variety of action situations. We derive measures that are conceptually robust and suitable for comparative analysis. With original data gathered on the official legal base in the 28 cases, we carry out principal components analysis. We identify design patterns across countries and instruments; the specialization of each instrument in terms of rule type; and the components that best explain cross‐country variation. In the conclusions we argue that to reframe the design features of the four instruments in conceptual, theoretical categories is not simply a taxonomical exercise but it extends to the territory of comparative policy analysis, practice and reform.
Highlights
Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom's (1995) Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT) conceptualizes and makes operational the fundamental intuitions of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework
We bring in rule types to empirically analyze the structure and content of four major rulemaking instruments deployed by the 27 European Union (EU) governments and the UK
Our major theoretical result lies in using the IGT as lens to correctly identify the variables that matter in the design of four policy instruments, derive measurement from theory, and deploy measurement across 28 countries to unveil suprising patterns and components that explain variation
Summary
Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom's (1995) Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT) conceptualizes and makes operational the fundamental intuitions of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Our analytical efforts are focused on the meso approach which categorizes institutional rules into seven rule types—position, boundary, choice, aggregation, information, payoff, and scope This typology is based on the different aims of institutional statements, standing as a generalization of ADICO (recall that “aIm” is one of the syntactic components of institutional statements) that allows for the reconstruction of action situations. We bring in rule types to empirically analyze the structure and content of four major rulemaking instruments deployed by the 27 European Union (EU) governments and the UK They are the following: consultation (notice and comment in US parlance), regulatory impact assessment (RIA), freedom of information (FOI), and the Ombudsman. We argue that to reframe the design features of the four instruments in conceptual, theoretical categories is not a taxonomical exercise but it extends to the territory of practice and reform
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
