Sensemaking
#11Key Findings
Austria falls into the upper-middle ranks internationally (rank 11) in the category of sensemaking.
The Chancellery serves as the main strategic-planning unit. However, it lacks the specialized personnel to function as a comprehensive strategy unit and cannot issue instructions to other ministries. Foresight activities are ad hoc rather than systematic.
Regulatory impact assessments must accompany every legislative proposal, but often involve a simplified process. RIAs must assess the environmental and employment effects of legislation, along with their financial impact and other effects.
Laws are often published in draft form, allowing for comment by stakeholders including trade unions and economic interests. While monitoring systems allow for ex post evaluation of federal measures, some observers say these processes have not produced a commitment to higher quality standards.
The Chancellery serves as the main strategic-planning unit. However, it lacks the specialized personnel to function as a comprehensive strategy unit and cannot issue instructions to other ministries. Foresight activities are ad hoc rather than systematic.
Regulatory impact assessments must accompany every legislative proposal, but often involve a simplified process. RIAs must assess the environmental and employment effects of legislation, along with their financial impact and other effects.
Laws are often published in draft form, allowing for comment by stakeholders including trade unions and economic interests. While monitoring systems allow for ex post evaluation of federal measures, some observers say these processes have not produced a commitment to higher quality standards.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Strategic-planning units and bodies consisting of public officials exist within individual ministries. The Federal Chancellery can be considered the principal strategic-planning unit, as it is responsible for coordinating the government’s various activities. However, it generally lacks the specialized personnel that would enable it to function as a comprehensive strategy unit and has no power to issue instructions to other ministries.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new forum called the “Future Operations Clearing Board” (see Koenig 2020) emerged within the chancellery. It was designed to facilitate the exchange between scientific knowledge and policymaking. Until its dissolution in early 2022, the think tank “Think Austria” was a key unit in the chancellery dedicated to fostering strategic foresight. In September 2021, a new unit was established to coordinate foresight-related activities (Referat IV/10/a – Europakommunikation, EU-Gemeinderäte).
However, an in-depth study of foresight-related structures and activities in the Austrian political executive found little evidence of systematic coordination in this field, with various ad hoc activities shaping the overall picture (see Rat für Forschung und Technologieentwicklung 2021).
Citations:
https://goeg.at/sites/goeg.at/files/inline-files/Briefing%20Paper%20Foresight%20Szenarienforum.pdf
Koenig, Thomas. 2020. “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Österreich. Die Erfahrungen mit der Einrichtung und Durchführung eines ‚Future Operations Clearing Board.” Forschung. Politik – Strategie – Management 13 (3-4): 101-106.
Rat für Forschung und Technologieentwicklung. 2021. “Strategische Foresight-Prozesse: Übersicht und Handlungsoptionen.” https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/665/1/211115_EBP_Foresight_Schlussbericht_anFTE.pdf
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new forum called the “Future Operations Clearing Board” (see Koenig 2020) emerged within the chancellery. It was designed to facilitate the exchange between scientific knowledge and policymaking. Until its dissolution in early 2022, the think tank “Think Austria” was a key unit in the chancellery dedicated to fostering strategic foresight. In September 2021, a new unit was established to coordinate foresight-related activities (Referat IV/10/a – Europakommunikation, EU-Gemeinderäte).
However, an in-depth study of foresight-related structures and activities in the Austrian political executive found little evidence of systematic coordination in this field, with various ad hoc activities shaping the overall picture (see Rat für Forschung und Technologieentwicklung 2021).
Citations:
https://goeg.at/sites/goeg.at/files/inline-files/Briefing%20Paper%20Foresight%20Szenarienforum.pdf
Koenig, Thomas. 2020. “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Österreich. Die Erfahrungen mit der Einrichtung und Durchführung eines ‚Future Operations Clearing Board.” Forschung. Politik – Strategie – Management 13 (3-4): 101-106.
Rat für Forschung und Technologieentwicklung. 2021. “Strategische Foresight-Prozesse: Übersicht und Handlungsoptionen.” https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/665/1/211115_EBP_Foresight_Schlussbericht_anFTE.pdf
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
Since 2013, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has been mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations, meaning RIAs must accompany every legislative proposal. A comprehensive threshold test, introduced in 2015, determines whether a full or a simplified RIA is required for draft regulations. Approximately two-thirds of all regulations undergo a simplified RIA.
The publication of draft laws for public assessment – while legally required in many cases – is commonly practiced before votes are taken. This allows public stakeholders to comment on proposed legislation, which occurs frequently. Trade unions, economic chambers, and other institutions are regularly invited to provide comments on draft laws.
Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are not written by sectoral experts but rather by the ministry or department preparing the draft law. Consequently, the expertise may sometimes be limited to that of the body preparing the draft law.
Currently, there is no independent body that evaluates RIA quality. The Federal Performance Management Office (FPMO) at the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (BMKOES) reviews the quality of all full RIAs. The FPMO publishes opinions on RIAs for primary laws and can advise civil servants to revise RIAs if they do not meet the required standards.
Since September 2017, all draft primary laws have been available on the parliamentary website, along with a short description of the legislative project and the respective regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Citizens can submit comments on the draft regulation or support comments made by others online. Since August 2021, citizens have also been able to submit comments on all legislative initiatives introduced in parliament – including government bills, as well as parliamentary and popular initiatives – during their parliamentary deliberation and support comments made by others online. Moreover, in 2018, an interactive crowdsourcing platform was launched to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views ahead of parliamentary initiatives. Nevertheless, no systematic public consultations are being held.
Citations:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/austria-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
The publication of draft laws for public assessment – while legally required in many cases – is commonly practiced before votes are taken. This allows public stakeholders to comment on proposed legislation, which occurs frequently. Trade unions, economic chambers, and other institutions are regularly invited to provide comments on draft laws.
Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are not written by sectoral experts but rather by the ministry or department preparing the draft law. Consequently, the expertise may sometimes be limited to that of the body preparing the draft law.
Currently, there is no independent body that evaluates RIA quality. The Federal Performance Management Office (FPMO) at the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (BMKOES) reviews the quality of all full RIAs. The FPMO publishes opinions on RIAs for primary laws and can advise civil servants to revise RIAs if they do not meet the required standards.
Since September 2017, all draft primary laws have been available on the parliamentary website, along with a short description of the legislative project and the respective regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Citizens can submit comments on the draft regulation or support comments made by others online. Since August 2021, citizens have also been able to submit comments on all legislative initiatives introduced in parliament – including government bills, as well as parliamentary and popular initiatives – during their parliamentary deliberation and support comments made by others online. Moreover, in 2018, an interactive crowdsourcing platform was launched to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views ahead of parliamentary initiatives. Nevertheless, no systematic public consultations are being held.
Citations:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/austria-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
The potential environmental effects of legislative proposals must be evaluated as part of RIAs, as must effects on employment. Various decrees require that financial and other issues be assessed. Analysis may focus on short-term, medium-term, or long-term effects according to specific RIA legal requirements, though the typical analysis focuses on a period of five years. In its annual RIA reports, the government explicitly commits to addressing the SDGs.
While Austria has an overarching sustainability strategy, there remains considerable room for improvement. However, the formation of a new government in early 2020, which included the Greens as a junior coalition partner to the ÖVP, has led to several improvements, even if some are partially symbolic. In 2020, the government published its first voluntary national report on the implementation of SDGs (Freiwilliger Bericht zur Umsetzung der Nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele / SDGs). In 2021, for the first time, the government’s budget included specific information about which SDG is to be accomplished by the respective legislative projects of each department. This means that legislative goals are now systematically linked to sustainability goals. Furthermore, efforts have been made to engage and involve Austrian civil society. In September 2021, the first SDG Dialogforum Österreich: Building Forward mit der Agenda 2030 took place. The forum used a hybrid format with participants representing various sectors and was intended to provide the basis for intensive collaboration between government, public administration, the science community, and civil society. This has been followed by an SDG Dialogue Forum 3.0 in October 2023.
In late 2022, the cabinet decided that Austria would present its second voluntary national report concerning the implementation of Agenda 2030 to the United Nations by July 2024. The plan was to use ideas and insights for that report gained from the 3.0 Dialogue Forum.
Citations:
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/nachhaltige-entwicklung-agenda-2030.html
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26661VNR_2020_Austria_Report_German.pdf
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/nachhaltige-entwicklung-agenda-2030/veranstaltungen-agenda2030/sdg-dialogforum-3-0.html
While Austria has an overarching sustainability strategy, there remains considerable room for improvement. However, the formation of a new government in early 2020, which included the Greens as a junior coalition partner to the ÖVP, has led to several improvements, even if some are partially symbolic. In 2020, the government published its first voluntary national report on the implementation of SDGs (Freiwilliger Bericht zur Umsetzung der Nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele / SDGs). In 2021, for the first time, the government’s budget included specific information about which SDG is to be accomplished by the respective legislative projects of each department. This means that legislative goals are now systematically linked to sustainability goals. Furthermore, efforts have been made to engage and involve Austrian civil society. In September 2021, the first SDG Dialogforum Österreich: Building Forward mit der Agenda 2030 took place. The forum used a hybrid format with participants representing various sectors and was intended to provide the basis for intensive collaboration between government, public administration, the science community, and civil society. This has been followed by an SDG Dialogue Forum 3.0 in October 2023.
In late 2022, the cabinet decided that Austria would present its second voluntary national report concerning the implementation of Agenda 2030 to the United Nations by July 2024. The plan was to use ideas and insights for that report gained from the 3.0 Dialogue Forum.
Citations:
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/nachhaltige-entwicklung-agenda-2030.html
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26661VNR_2020_Austria_Report_German.pdf
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/nachhaltige-entwicklung-agenda-2030/veranstaltungen-agenda2030/sdg-dialogforum-3-0.html
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
A complex regime of ex post evaluation for legal measures of the federal government was introduced in 2013. Since then, monitoring and evaluation have been applied to various levels and formats of public governance. The key goal has been to allow the federal government to reflect on its activities, contrast its ambitions and outcomes, and use those insights to define future goals more reasonably. For this reason, some relevant bills and other measures are evaluated internally within different departments. These departmental internal evaluations are collected and combined into a major report by a cross-departmental agency and forwarded to the budgetary committee of the Nationalrat.
Some observers have criticized that these institutional innovations have not led to a shift in the public administration’s commitment to higher quality standards. There is no policy mandating systematic external reviews by scientific institutions (such as the German Minimum Wage Commission). Additionally, there is no commitment or understanding that some public policies could be implemented experimentally, allowing for clear academic evaluation and potentially making it compulsory (Pichler and Steyer 2017).
The official 2022 review report on the ex post evaluations (see Budgetdienst 2023) lists 55 measures from 2015 to 2021 that were subject to internal evaluations. In 33 of the 55 cases, the expected effects were met or surpassed; most others achieved their set goals at least in large part. Only one project was considered a failure. However, as stated in the same report, most of these reviews were not carried out in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the “Bundeshaushaltsgesetz 2013.”
The same source notes that those evaluations have hardly been considered by the responsible committee. Further, the report points out that many politically significant government bills were introduced in parliament as motions (“Initiativanträge”) to which lower standards apply. This was true for much of the COVID-19 legislation and many measures aimed at combating inflation or the energy crisis. This also implies that these measures will not be part of future general assessments or official investigation reports.
Systematic ex post evaluation in Austria is also conducted by the Austrian Court of Audit, which focuses specifically on the financial aspects of government or government-sponsored projects. Additionally, ex post evaluation is a major objective for Austrian scientific bodies outside of ministries, such as the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), the Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna (HIS), and other Austrian university actors.
Citations:
Budgetdienst/Parlamentsdirektion. 2023. “Bericht über die Wirkungsorientierte Folgenabschätzung 2022. Analyse.” https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/budgetdienst/wirkungsorientierung-gleichstellung/BD-Bericht-ueber-die-Wirkungsorientierte-Folgenabschaetzung-2022.pdf
Pichler, Rupert, and Mario Steyer. 2017. “Evaluierung und Wirkungsorientierung in Österreich. Zur Rolle von Evaluierung im neuen Haushaltsrecht und in der Forschungsförderung.” Zeitschrift für Evaluation 16 (2): 121-139. https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/abs/10.31244/zfe.2017.02.07
https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/386/7/standards_DT_WEB_08042019.pdf
Some observers have criticized that these institutional innovations have not led to a shift in the public administration’s commitment to higher quality standards. There is no policy mandating systematic external reviews by scientific institutions (such as the German Minimum Wage Commission). Additionally, there is no commitment or understanding that some public policies could be implemented experimentally, allowing for clear academic evaluation and potentially making it compulsory (Pichler and Steyer 2017).
The official 2022 review report on the ex post evaluations (see Budgetdienst 2023) lists 55 measures from 2015 to 2021 that were subject to internal evaluations. In 33 of the 55 cases, the expected effects were met or surpassed; most others achieved their set goals at least in large part. Only one project was considered a failure. However, as stated in the same report, most of these reviews were not carried out in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the “Bundeshaushaltsgesetz 2013.”
The same source notes that those evaluations have hardly been considered by the responsible committee. Further, the report points out that many politically significant government bills were introduced in parliament as motions (“Initiativanträge”) to which lower standards apply. This was true for much of the COVID-19 legislation and many measures aimed at combating inflation or the energy crisis. This also implies that these measures will not be part of future general assessments or official investigation reports.
Systematic ex post evaluation in Austria is also conducted by the Austrian Court of Audit, which focuses specifically on the financial aspects of government or government-sponsored projects. Additionally, ex post evaluation is a major objective for Austrian scientific bodies outside of ministries, such as the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), the Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna (HIS), and other Austrian university actors.
Citations:
Budgetdienst/Parlamentsdirektion. 2023. “Bericht über die Wirkungsorientierte Folgenabschätzung 2022. Analyse.” https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/budgetdienst/wirkungsorientierung-gleichstellung/BD-Bericht-ueber-die-Wirkungsorientierte-Folgenabschaetzung-2022.pdf
Pichler, Rupert, and Mario Steyer. 2017. “Evaluierung und Wirkungsorientierung in Österreich. Zur Rolle von Evaluierung im neuen Haushaltsrecht und in der Forschungsförderung.” Zeitschrift für Evaluation 16 (2): 121-139. https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/abs/10.31244/zfe.2017.02.07
https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/386/7/standards_DT_WEB_08042019.pdf