Subsequently, the institution proposing the draft law should describe the solution (theses – legislative intent) supposed to remove or alleviate the problems described. At the same time, the proposing institution should perform a regulatory impact assessment, including cost-benefit comparison of the proposed draft law and a corruption analysis announcement.
If the state institution preparing the proposal of a law had an obligation to describe a substantive solution with a parallel impact assessment, including corruption opportunities assesment, it would be possible to easily verify whether the proposed solutions do not deviate from the problem which they are supposed to resolve.
Sources:
- European Commission: Staff Working Document, Better Regulation Guidelines, European Commission, COM(2015) 215 final, p. 22 - 24
- European Commission: Better Regulation Toolbox, SWD(2015) 111, p. 73 – 86
- Corruption Impact Assesment (CIA) methodology, 1 January 2013
- Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic: General principles for regulation of impact assessment (RIA), 2007, updated version dated 2011, p. 18 – 19
- Methodology for determination of the amount and origin of administration burden for enterpreneurs (calculator of administration burden of enterpreneurs)
- Methodology for determination of planned costs for putting forward public policy (calculator of planned costs for putting forward public policy)
- Kohout, P. andcoll., Collection of texts of a working group for the fight against corruption, National Economic Government Council, June 2011), p. 88 - 91
- Vondráček, O., Havrda, M., 21 recipes – Anti-corruption cookbook, Recipe 13: (Poor)Quality of Czech laws, December 2013
More about methodology
Justification and sources