Representing a Framework for Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Formulation of Cultural Policies

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD in Public Administration, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Today, the policy making process and especially the policy development stage follows precise characteristics and criteria so that what is developed can be successful in the implementation phase. In this regard, mere evaluating the implementation of the policy (ex post) did not work, and therefore, success in the correct evaluation of regulation can be achieved when the comprehensive and general process of evaluating the effects (positive and negative) of regulation is revealed in a combined form (ex ante and ex post). So, the main goal of this research will be to address the basic question of what components and stages should be included in the appropriate framework for evaluating the effects of regulation in the formulation of cultural policies. In this research, the research will be conducted from the interpretive paradigm, with an Inductive-Deductive approach, Multi-method quality and through the use of the Meta-synthesis and case study strategy. The required data will be collected from the literature review as well as the research environment and participants. According to the qualitative analysis using the theme analysis technique and 2020 MAXQDA software, the data collected were identified in 4 main themes including measures to prepare the space for using RIA, like the creation of a knowledge management network, steps and components of RIA implementation such as; Diagnosing, recognizing and defining the problem; Determining the audience, selecting the executive, reviewing the current situation, drawing the desired situation, reviewing the dimensions and effects of decisions, implementation and recommendations before that, and finally monitoring and evaluation; The results of establishing RIA for the organization, audience community and higher education and finally the main theme of institutionalizing RIA including internal and external factors in order to present the RIA framework with the help of process causality technique in formulating cultural policies.

Keywords

References

  1. Aazami, A., Moghimi, S. M., & Nargesian, A. (2023). The framework of regulatory impact ass essment with a meta-synthesis. Organizational Culture Management, 21(3), 205-219. doi: 10.22059/jomc.2023.351408.1008504 (in Persian).
  2. Adelle, C., Weiland, S., Dick, J., Olivo, D.G., Marquardt, J., Rots, G., Wubbeke, J., & Zasada, I. (2016). Regulatory impact assessment: a survey of selected developing and emerging economies. Public Money & Management, 36(2), 89-96.
  3. Alemanno, A. (2011). A meeting of minds on impact assessment. European Public Law, 17(3).
  4. Alisherovna, S. S. (2023). ISSUES OF DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN. International Journal of Law And Criminology, 3(08), 50-55.
  5. Brzęk, W. (2014). Regulation Impact Assessment (RIA) at Poland and at some EU countries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 45 – 50.
  6. Bice, S., & Fischer, T. B. (2020). Impact assessment for the 21st century–what future?. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 38(2), 89-93.
  7. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2014). Case studies and (causal-) process tracing. In Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 59-83). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  8. Carvalho, B., Marques, R. C., & Netto, O. C. (2017). Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA): from the State of Art until Conceptual and Framework Proposal Model. Contemporary Management, 6(1), 111-126.
  9. Carvalho, B., Rondon, R., & Marques, R. C. (2020). Better utility regulation through RIA? Merits and implications based on the Brazilian case. Utilities Policy, 64, 1-9.
  10. Castro, C. M. D. (2014). Some aspects of implementing regulatory impact analysis in Brazil. Revista de Administração Pública, 48, 323-342.
  11. Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435-436.
  12. Cooper, Linda. (2007). Writing Science Articles", Course Pack, McGill University.
  13. Carvalho, B. E., Marques, R. C., & Netto, O. C. (2017). Delphi technique as a consultation method in regulatory impact assessment (RIA)–the Portuguese water sector. Water Policy, 19(3), 423-439.
  14. Dvorak, J. (2015). The Lithuanian Government’s Policy of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, 23(2), 129–146.
  15. Drummond, J. R., & Radaelli, C. M. (2024). Behavioural Analysis and Regulatory Impact Assessment. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1-16.
  16. Emami Maybodi, R., & Azadani, M. (2020). Suggestions for Incorporating Evaluation of Policies, Acts and Regulations into the Decision-Making Process. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 325-349. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.2020.76996 (in Persian).
  17. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1)25-32.
  18. Ellig, J., & Fike, R. (2016). Regulatory Process, Regulatory Reform, and the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis1. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(3), 523-559.
  19. Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1701195.
  20. Hudson, B., hunter, D., & peckham, S. (2017). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: canpolicy support programs help? POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE, 2(1), 1–14.
  21. Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300. org/10.1177/1056492617706029.
  22. Jacobs, S. (2004). Regulatory impact assessment and the economic transition to markets. Public Money & Management, 24(5), 283-290.
  23. Karimi, M., cheshomi, A., & Cheshomi, M. (2016). The Impacts of Regulation Quality on the Development of Insurance Industry. Monetary & Financial Economics, 23(11), 167-191. doi: 10.22067/pm.v23i11.38277(in Persian).
  24. Khan, J. (2021). European academic brain drain: A meta‐synthesis. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 265-278.
  25. Kai, P., & Feindt, P. H. (2015). Better Regulatory Impact Assessment: Making Behavioural Insights Work for the Commission's New Better Regulation Strategy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(3), 361-368.
  26. Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (2004). Regulatory impact assessment—an overview. Public Money & Management, 24(5), 267-270
  27. Khademizadeh, S., Faraj Pahlou, A., & Mohammadi, Z. (2019). Relationship between Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries (Case Study: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz). Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 2(3), 111-137(in Persian).
  28. Merriam, S. B. (2009). A Guide to Design and Implementation Revised and Expanded from Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  29. Naumoska, J. T., & Rizankoska, J. (2020). ANNOYING BUZZERS OR PRODUCTIVE BEES? THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESSES IN NORTH MACEDONIA. KNOWLEDGE- International Journal, 38(5), 1049-1058.
  30. (2020). Ex Ante Regulatory Impact Assessment: Netherlands. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.
  31. Pankovski, M. (2021). Governance versus Authoritarian Influence in the Western Balkans. Policy Paper, German Marshall Fund of the United States, 2-19.
  32. Partidario, M. R. (2020). Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 146-150.
  33. Reyhani Shukkat Abad, F., Hosseingholizadeh, R., & Khorakiyan, A. (2022). Investigating the Status of Knowledge Sharing and Its Relationship with Innovative Work Behavior of Employees (Case Study: Manufacturing Company). Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 4(4), 67-110(in Persian).
  34. rahimi, A., aliverdizadeh, H., & mahmoudabadi, S. (2023). Investigating the effect of knowledge management on organizational agility with emphasis on the mediating role of organizational innovation(Case of study: defense project-oriented organizations). Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 6(2), 21-52(in Persian).
  35. Y., Rashid, A.,Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case Study Method: A Step-by-Step Guide for Business Researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–13.
  36. Rissi, C., & Sager, F. (2013). Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from S wiss policymaking. Regulation & Governance, 7(3), 348-364.
  37. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach (Seventh Ed). United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (Eight Ed). Pearson education limited. (First published under the Pitman Publishing imprint in 1997).
  39. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: SAGE.
  40. Sugi, L. (2023). Poverty in Golden Fishing: A Regulatory Impact Assessment of Fishermen Poverty in Indonesia. Policy & Governance Review, 7(1), 54-71.
  41. Turgel, I. D., Panzabekova, A. Zh., & Symaniuk, N. V. (2020). ARRANGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: EXPERIENCE OF RUSSIA, KAZAKHSTAN, AND UZBEKISTAN. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN, 5(387), 208 – 218. doi.org/10.32014/2020.2518-1467.160.
  42. Verleye, K. (2019). Designing, writing-up and reviewing case study research: an equifinality perspective. Journal of Service Management, 30(5), 549-576. doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2019-0257.
  43. Vliamos, S. (2024). Political economy and impact assessment. Statute Law Review, 45(1), hmae004.
  44. Wiener, J. B. & Ribeiro, D L. (2014). Impact Assessment: Diffusion and Integration. Duke Law School– August.
  45. Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. Retrieved from www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf
  46. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications:design and methods (sixth Ed). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 11, Issue 1
March 2025
Pages 25-40

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics