Abstract
|
Innovation is considered as a separate phenomenon from law since law aims at stability and certainty while innovation is closely connected with dynamics and flexibility. However, this is not the case in contemporary public administration when administrators need to tackle complex “wicked issues”. Hence, new approaches are requested. Moreover, already present in comparative EU practice there are some cases and good examples of innovative regulation and its implementation. Usually the term involves a new law bringing together in one document existing principles, which are scattered across different regulations and in the case law of courts (see ReNEUAL, Model, 2014; cf. Majone, The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe, 1994). The regulatory process must take into account the effects of regulation on innovation as well as the implications of technical change for the rationale and design of regulation. The regulation/innovation interface is mutual and dynamic; an understanding of this interface is crucial to regulatory reform efforts (OECD, 2016, http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/2102514.pdf, cf. EC, Regulatory Screening, Innovation Effects of Regulation, 2014).
Administrative procedures are an inevitable part of modern society. Respective law, which regulates administrative affairs, therefore changes accordingly and rather rapidly as well - in order to cover open challenges. Administrative procedures and respective law need to address a balance between protection of public interest and individual (even human) rights of parties in proceedings. Since many countries have adopted codificated Administrative Procedure Act (APA), these conflicts are taken into account differently. Some still insist on a traditional concept of APA being a tool against arbitrary use of power, but an innovative regulation on the field proved to be more productive if effective public policies are set as a primary goal at this level.
Authors of this paper intend to analyse some of recent changes of codification of administrative procedures, where we can detect innovative methods and solutions, such as redefinition of fundamental principles, alternative dispute resolution, one-stop-shops, removal of administrative barriers, etc. In addition, we will conduct structured interviews with representatives of ministries to detect, to which extent innovative APA institutes work in practices. Our hypothesis is that pure normative attitude is counterproductive, so innovative regulation can realise its aim only when there are comprehensive measures taken. These include novelties of laws since legal provision might enhance or hinder innovative governance. But beside or above that we should take care of restructuring administrative infrastructure, change of bureaucratic attitude of officials and mechanism to stimulate individual creativity (cf. Beefting et al., Being Successful in a Creative Profession, 2012), in depth development of e-government (cf. Nixon and Kontrakor, E-governmnet in Europe, 2006) etc.
Paper proposed will tackle a research question of whether and to which extent innovative regulation and(!) according non-legal measures at its implementation are present in administrative procedures in selected countries in Eastern Europe, based on EU APA drafting. Through such a comparison, we will try to verify anticipated implementation gap on the field and identify key elements that need to be addressed on strategic level in future to become innovative in administrative law too. We believe the results will be useful for academia and administrative practitioners.
|
