Читаем без скачивания Позитивные изменения, Том 3 №1, 2023. Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 1 (2023) - Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения»
Шрифт:
Интервал:
Закладка:
RUSSIAN AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN ASSESSING THE ACTUAL IMPACT IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT
Assessment of the actual impact of statutory regulations is an examination of a current legislative act, designed to eliminate ambiguous wording, identify provisions that result in excessive costs to businesses and investors, as well as the budget system of the Russian Federation.
The difference between the actual impact assessment (AIA) and the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is that the AIA is conducted after the regulatory document has been adopted and interprets the changes achieved, while the RIA takes place before the adoption. In other words, AIA, as an analysis of the consequences of the established regulation, is in fact ex post (after the fact) regulatory impact assessment (Alekseeva, 2017).
In Russia, the practices of actual impact assessment emerged in 2015 and are defined by subject matter experts as a legal mechanism for assessing the impact of regulations affecting the interests of businesses and investors (Arzamasov, 2019). AIA is mainly applied by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. Referring to the order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia on the approval of the methodology for assessing the actual impact of statutory regulations, the AIA analysis is based on such data as the costs for economic entities to comply with regulation; costs and revenues for the budget system related to the implementation of that regulation; and information on violations of the regulation. Proposals can be gathered via meetings of expert and working groups, as well as interviews with representatives of interested parties. Thus, in accordance with the methodology and according to the reports on the status of actual impact assessment, the assessment only covers the issues of business and investment activities. Social consequences of legal regulation are outside of the scope of impact assessment.
To illustrate the mechanism of actual impact assessment in Russia, you can refer to the “Regulatory Impact Assessment” portal[42]. There you can find a description of the AIA procedure, which includes such steps as a public discussion, a working group meeting of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the preparation of the report by the respective federal executive authority. It also lists best practices for assessing actual impact, which make it clear that the social aspect is only perceived in the context of minimizing risks rather than assessing effectiveness and positive impact.
Regulatory impact assessment practices appeared at the regional level first, before the federal level – for example, the Government of Moscow introduced AIA simultaneously with RIA, and started with conducting just actual impact assessment. The 2018 report by Golodnikova et al. cites assessment challenges such as the evasion opportunities through agencies, introduction of bills bypassing the government, insufficient information in the databases, and low levels of regulatory recipient engagement. The report authors note that the subject matter of the AIA was narrowed in 2015 by excluding statutory regulations that fall within the framework of national projects and initiatives. Resistance to the assessment procedure is also observed at the apparatus level.
For specific assessment practices, one can refer to the State Duma’s 2020 Analytical Bulletin[43]: the actual impact assessment of the legislation on development of small and medium-sized businesses uses an extremely formal approach that takes into account the wording of statutory regulations, reporting types, and the public awareness. The assessment includes neither economic calculations nor any empirical information about the socio-economic effect of the regulations.
In terms of foreign AIA practices, it may be noted that in the United States and Canada only legislative acts developed by the executive branch of the government are assessed. Meanwhile, in the United States there is a separate unit to monitor the implementation of laws and federal programs – the Congressional Budget Office (Golodnikova & Tsygankov, 2015). The European Commission’s methodology establishes the following criteria for impact assessment: impact on human rights, individual economic sectors, economic actors, population groups, culture and the environment (Ibid.). On the other hand, the European Union countries do not generally have a central nationwide system for assessing the social consequences of the adoption of statutory regulations in the field of social investment (Orekhova, 2022): in Germany, the assessment is conducted regionally with a focus on finding financial risks and setting up the legal environment; in France financial laws are subject to mandatory assessment, but only in the economic plane.
Thus, social impact assessment of social investment projects is not a common practice during actual impact assessment, neither in Russia nor in the EU.
However, legally established practices of AIA in the field of social investment can still be found. They are related to social impact bonds. For example, in Great Britain, a social investor, in order to get a refund of their investment, must prove a positive social effect, which is evaluated by an independent agency (mediator). It is worth noting that this practice is at the junction of all the positive tools we discussed earlier:
• a separate state institution in charge of social investment;
• presence of an independent organizational evaluator;
• focus on income and tax benefits for the investor;
• using the methodology to investigate social impact[44].
One of the major social impact operators in Russia, VEB.RF state corporation, presents the following list of stakeholders: the contractor, investor, public authority, independent evaluator, and operator[45]. This list correlates with the “stateinvestor-contractor” triangle plus the two mediators described by the Urban Institute[46]. Thus, in the Russian model,
