The 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

EUFLAG
EUFLAG

...Sessions were interesting, scholars were engaging and all the social events were amazing!

B.K., Kazakhstan, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

Excellent organization, excellent food. Compliments to the organizers, they did a wonderful job!

V.J., Netherlands, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

...I must say that the PhD pre-conference seminar was the most useful seminar of my life. Very well...

K.V., Czech Republic, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

... I would even argue that they are the very best - both in terms of scientific content and also entertainment…

P.W., Denmark, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  27th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
Main Theme
Author(s)  Tatiana-Camelia Dogaru (Cruceanu) 
  National School of Political Studies and Public Administration
Bucharest  Romania
Kreci Veli,  
 
 Title  Implementing RIA in Policy-making in Romania … Still under construction!
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Tatiana-Camelia Dogaru (Cruceanu)
Abstract  
  
Recognition is growing that policymakers can design substantially better policies by using rigorous evidence for informing their decisions, selecting funds and operating public programs more strategically. Based on that, in the last decades, countries have been engaged into a process of reforming policymaking, including evidence-based instruments, although the idea of using evidence to inform policy is not new, but is far back, Aristotel stated that different kinds of knowledge should inform rulemaking.
In this paper, I set to analyse the application of regulatory impact assessment into policymaking, taking int account that even before accession to the European Union, Romania has introduced the RIA as an evidence-based instruments, although the EU has no specific competences in the administrative sphere. However, an indirect impact of EU through the administrative standard set in the aquis, the transfer of the best practice and the promotion of its own management practices can be noticed on the administrative practice of Member States. The aim is to present several factors that emerged from the transfer process of policymaking into practice at a national level. Presenting and analysing these factors is seen as a way of understanding why the culture of using RIA in Romania is a path still under construction.
The methodological part takes the form of a qualitative analysis, consisting in the presentation of the steps made by Romanian government, for understanding why the use and the quality of RIA is highly uneven, and many RIAs are superficial.