Sensemaking
#2Key Findings
In the category of sensemaking, Finland falls into the top group internationally (rank 2).
The Prime Minister’s Office contains a dedicated central government unit for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation. This unit autonomously explores ideas and scenarios, provides tools and guidance, coordinates and monitors activities, offers training and coaching, and organizes events.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are not legally mandated but are routinely carried out. These assessments utilize multiple indicator sets, consult various interests and employ different techniques. While sustainability aspects are considered, there is no legal requirement for long-term analyses.
RIAs tend to be written to facilitate the passage of a bill, and rarely lead to significant changes in the proposed laws. There is no systematic strategy for the ex post evaluation of regulations, but some government research institutes carry them out on a case-by-case basis.
The Prime Minister’s Office contains a dedicated central government unit for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation. This unit autonomously explores ideas and scenarios, provides tools and guidance, coordinates and monitors activities, offers training and coaching, and organizes events.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are not legally mandated but are routinely carried out. These assessments utilize multiple indicator sets, consult various interests and employ different techniques. While sustainability aspects are considered, there is no legal requirement for long-term analyses.
RIAs tend to be written to facilitate the passage of a bill, and rarely lead to significant changes in the proposed laws. There is no systematic strategy for the ex post evaluation of regulations, but some government research institutes carry them out on a case-by-case basis.
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.
Finland recognizes the need to proactively prepare for the future and navigate associated uncertainties. The government’s foresight activities are designed to facilitate decision-making by fostering a collective understanding of forthcoming changes. Central to this approach is a commitment to cooperation and broad participation, ensuring that diverse perspectives contribute to shaping the nation’s trajectory.
The PMO’s foresight unit emphasizes that foresight is not about predicting the future with certainty. Instead, it involves exploring multiple potential paths for future development, unveiling the opportunities and challenges associated with each (Finnish Government n.d.). This approach enables a nuanced understanding of the complex and evolving landscape, guiding strategic decisions and policies for a resilient and adaptive future.
There is a dedicated central government unit for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation at the PMO. This unit autonomously explores ideas and scenarios, provides tools and guidance, coordinates and monitors activities, offers training and coaching, and organizes events. Other central government policy units also support policy implementation in specific areas such as open government, knowledge management and digital transformation.
The current government does not encourage policy experimentation through innovation labs, behavioral insights or delivery teams. It has not utilized techniques like prototyping, human-centered design, randomized controlled trials, project-based employment or data analysis. In 2017 – 2018, Finland conducted a randomized controlled trial on partial basic income.
The present government does not allocate sufficient financial and human resources, such as grant funding and procurement, to establish test beds for new ideas. To save money, the government cut the PMO’s program for targeted research projects that was directly linked to the cabinet program (VN-TEAS).
Strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation are not included as fundamental skills to be acquired in the recruitment and training of high-level civil servants.
The impact of the central government’s strategic foresight and innovation unit on work practices and the organizational culture within ministerial bureaucracies is unclear. The ministries produce future outlook reports every four years.
The frequency of meetings and events between innovation units and ministries is sporadic at best. This lack of consistent engagement hinders effective collaboration and communication between these entities.
Despite the foresight unit at the PMO, the central government’s planning demonstrates limited allowance for multiple futures and scenarios as expressed in its strategic plans. The planning tends to be rigid, prioritizing singular trajectories rather than embracing diverse potential outcomes.
Experimental techniques are seldom employed before policy measures are rolled out. The absence of a robust and systematic approach to testing and refining policies before full implementation leads to potential challenges and unforeseen consequences.
The level of success in projects impacting government operations, such as those focusing on open government, knowledge management and digital transformation, is notably low. These projects often fail to reach the anticipated outcomes, reflecting a shortfall in effective execution and strategic alignment. Additionally, securing adequate financial resources for sustaining these activities through the long term is a persistent challenge, compromising their viability and longevity.
Citations:
Finnish Government. n.d. “Foresight activities and work on the future.” https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/foresight-activities-and-work-on-the-future/ministries-joint-foresight-activities
The PMO’s foresight unit emphasizes that foresight is not about predicting the future with certainty. Instead, it involves exploring multiple potential paths for future development, unveiling the opportunities and challenges associated with each (Finnish Government n.d.). This approach enables a nuanced understanding of the complex and evolving landscape, guiding strategic decisions and policies for a resilient and adaptive future.
There is a dedicated central government unit for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation at the PMO. This unit autonomously explores ideas and scenarios, provides tools and guidance, coordinates and monitors activities, offers training and coaching, and organizes events. Other central government policy units also support policy implementation in specific areas such as open government, knowledge management and digital transformation.
The current government does not encourage policy experimentation through innovation labs, behavioral insights or delivery teams. It has not utilized techniques like prototyping, human-centered design, randomized controlled trials, project-based employment or data analysis. In 2017 – 2018, Finland conducted a randomized controlled trial on partial basic income.
The present government does not allocate sufficient financial and human resources, such as grant funding and procurement, to establish test beds for new ideas. To save money, the government cut the PMO’s program for targeted research projects that was directly linked to the cabinet program (VN-TEAS).
Strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation are not included as fundamental skills to be acquired in the recruitment and training of high-level civil servants.
The impact of the central government’s strategic foresight and innovation unit on work practices and the organizational culture within ministerial bureaucracies is unclear. The ministries produce future outlook reports every four years.
The frequency of meetings and events between innovation units and ministries is sporadic at best. This lack of consistent engagement hinders effective collaboration and communication between these entities.
Despite the foresight unit at the PMO, the central government’s planning demonstrates limited allowance for multiple futures and scenarios as expressed in its strategic plans. The planning tends to be rigid, prioritizing singular trajectories rather than embracing diverse potential outcomes.
Experimental techniques are seldom employed before policy measures are rolled out. The absence of a robust and systematic approach to testing and refining policies before full implementation leads to potential challenges and unforeseen consequences.
The level of success in projects impacting government operations, such as those focusing on open government, knowledge management and digital transformation, is notably low. These projects often fail to reach the anticipated outcomes, reflecting a shortfall in effective execution and strategic alignment. Additionally, securing adequate financial resources for sustaining these activities through the long term is a persistent challenge, compromising their viability and longevity.
Citations:
Finnish Government. n.d. “Foresight activities and work on the future.” https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/foresight-activities-and-work-on-the-future/ministries-joint-foresight-activities
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.
The Finnish government understands that regular and comprehensive assessments of regulations are fundamental to governing complex and open societies and economies. Consequently, the country has implemented a thorough regulatory impact assessment (RIA) program. Finland has formally adopted a regulatory impact assessment strategy that includes instructions to be followed when drafting legislative proposals, complemented by additional guidance issued by ministries. These assessments utilize multiple indicator sets, consult various interests and employ different techniques.
Systematic impact assessment is a routine part of the Finnish draft-legislation process, although it is not mandated by law. Regulatory impact assessment activities have included a series of evaluation reports by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that address partner countries, geographic regions and principles of development policy. Additionally, assessments have investigated the activities of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and an international evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system – commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy – has been conducted.
The general framework for regulatory impact assessments is grounded in a program-management system governing intersectoral policy programs. This framework, initiated in 2007, continues to guide impact assessments. An independent Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis was established in December 2015 within the Prime Minister’s Office as part of the Sipilä government’s program. The council is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and on their regulatory impact assessments.
Several government bills have been rejected by the Constitutional Committee in parliament. These have included proposals on social and healthcare reform as well as measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The committee criticized the government proposals as poorly prepared and lacking sufficient impact assessments.
Impact assessment guidelines adopted in 2007 still provide a general framework for the process of regulatory impact assessment. The Revision Bureau of the Ministry of Justice’s Law Drafting Department monitors compliance with these impact assessment guidelines. Impact assessments cover the economic, administrative, environmental and social impacts of proposed legislation. The guidelines describe what kind of impact may be involved, how the impact may be assessed, and what methods and sources of information are available. They also specify the extent to which this information must be included in the assessments. For instance, assessments may address proposals’ potential economic impact on households, businesses and public finances, as well as the overall economic impact. However, there are no uniform (scientific) minimum standards for implementing RIAs.
Regarding methodology, guidelines recommend the use of statistical data, questionnaire data, expert analyses and, when necessary, qualitative methods. Generally, the regulatory impact assessment process is well-structured and of high quality. However, in its annual review for the 2017 assessment, the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact noted that although guidelines for drafting laws were available, the guidelines were somewhat inconsistent and overlapping.
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a regulatory change. However, stakeholders are routinely offered the opportunity to give a statement on the proposed regulation. The statements are made public once the draft law is processed in parliament.
In its report for 2018, the Council of Regulatory Impact Assessment noted that the quality of impact assessments had improved, but also pointed out that more resources were needed to strengthen ministries’ expertise in drafting legislation. During the pandemic, ministries’ capacities to prepare new legal proposals and conduct impact assessments were overstretched. This was particularly true of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, which prepared a large number of law proposals and decrees related to efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus.
Once a draft law is published, the results of the RIAs are also made public. However, the RIAs do not directly impact new legislation. Instead, the proposed legislation is based on the cabinet program. RIAs are written in a manner that facilitates the passing of the proposed legislation.
The RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators such as public budgets, labor market outcomes, the environment and compliance costs for businesses. However, RIAs very rarely lead to changes in legislation.
Modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research, are rarely used in RIAs.
Citations:
Ministry of Justice. 2008. “Impact Assessment in Legislative Drafting. Guidelines.” Finland. Publication 2008:4.
Auri Pakarinen, Jyrki Tala and Laura Hämynen. “Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Finnish.”
Government’s Proposals in 2009,” National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications
no. 104;
“Better Regulation.” Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 2014.
http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/parempisaantely.html
Prime Minister’s Office, Finland. “Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.” http://vnk.fi/en/council-of-regulatory-impact-analysi
“Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis Annual Review 2018.” http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-
287-772-7
Systematic impact assessment is a routine part of the Finnish draft-legislation process, although it is not mandated by law. Regulatory impact assessment activities have included a series of evaluation reports by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that address partner countries, geographic regions and principles of development policy. Additionally, assessments have investigated the activities of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and an international evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system – commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy – has been conducted.
The general framework for regulatory impact assessments is grounded in a program-management system governing intersectoral policy programs. This framework, initiated in 2007, continues to guide impact assessments. An independent Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis was established in December 2015 within the Prime Minister’s Office as part of the Sipilä government’s program. The council is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and on their regulatory impact assessments.
Several government bills have been rejected by the Constitutional Committee in parliament. These have included proposals on social and healthcare reform as well as measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The committee criticized the government proposals as poorly prepared and lacking sufficient impact assessments.
Impact assessment guidelines adopted in 2007 still provide a general framework for the process of regulatory impact assessment. The Revision Bureau of the Ministry of Justice’s Law Drafting Department monitors compliance with these impact assessment guidelines. Impact assessments cover the economic, administrative, environmental and social impacts of proposed legislation. The guidelines describe what kind of impact may be involved, how the impact may be assessed, and what methods and sources of information are available. They also specify the extent to which this information must be included in the assessments. For instance, assessments may address proposals’ potential economic impact on households, businesses and public finances, as well as the overall economic impact. However, there are no uniform (scientific) minimum standards for implementing RIAs.
Regarding methodology, guidelines recommend the use of statistical data, questionnaire data, expert analyses and, when necessary, qualitative methods. Generally, the regulatory impact assessment process is well-structured and of high quality. However, in its annual review for the 2017 assessment, the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact noted that although guidelines for drafting laws were available, the guidelines were somewhat inconsistent and overlapping.
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a regulatory change. However, stakeholders are routinely offered the opportunity to give a statement on the proposed regulation. The statements are made public once the draft law is processed in parliament.
In its report for 2018, the Council of Regulatory Impact Assessment noted that the quality of impact assessments had improved, but also pointed out that more resources were needed to strengthen ministries’ expertise in drafting legislation. During the pandemic, ministries’ capacities to prepare new legal proposals and conduct impact assessments were overstretched. This was particularly true of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, which prepared a large number of law proposals and decrees related to efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus.
Once a draft law is published, the results of the RIAs are also made public. However, the RIAs do not directly impact new legislation. Instead, the proposed legislation is based on the cabinet program. RIAs are written in a manner that facilitates the passing of the proposed legislation.
The RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators such as public budgets, labor market outcomes, the environment and compliance costs for businesses. However, RIAs very rarely lead to changes in legislation.
Modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research, are rarely used in RIAs.
Citations:
Ministry of Justice. 2008. “Impact Assessment in Legislative Drafting. Guidelines.” Finland. Publication 2008:4.
Auri Pakarinen, Jyrki Tala and Laura Hämynen. “Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Finnish.”
Government’s Proposals in 2009,” National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications
no. 104;
“Better Regulation.” Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 2014.
http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/parempisaantely.html
Prime Minister’s Office, Finland. “Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.” http://vnk.fi/en/council-of-regulatory-impact-analysi
“Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis Annual Review 2018.” http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-
287-772-7
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.
Generally speaking, aspects of sustainability are an integral part of the assessment process. Variations between forecasts and actual outcomes are monitored over time. Every four years, the government submits a report to parliament on the progress made in implementing the Agenda 2030 goals in Finland. The report additionally reviews how government goals align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
However, the government does not have a specific strategy for implementing Agenda 2030 goals that has been broken down into concrete action plans. The status of sustainable development in Finland is systematically monitored through agreed-upon indicators within the National Sustainable Development Monitoring Network. Experts from various thematic areas compile annual assessments based on these indicators, providing comprehensive descriptions of the state of sustainable development in different domains. Citizens actively contribute to this assessment through the annual Citizens’ Panel on Sustainable Development. These facts demonstrate the capacity to monitor sustainable development.
The Prime Minister’s Office and the Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development review discussions, selecting topics for further promotion. Key messages are consolidated and presented annually in May at an event addressing the current state of and future prospects for sustainable development. The overarching objectives of the monitoring and ensuing discussions are to: 1) generate a holistic understanding of Finland’s success in advancing sustainable development; and 2) identify challenges and pain points in sustainable development, helping to inform the formulation of consistent policies.
The monitoring process aligns with the Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development instrument, encapsulated in “The Finland we want by 2050,” which serves as Finland’s implementation of the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. The commitment outlines eight objectives representing the envisioned state of sustainable development in Finland by 2050, as defined by the Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development in 2013 (Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development n.d.). Progress toward these objectives is monitored through 10 indicator baskets associated with the commitment. These indicators, established in 2017 by a network of experts, are updated annually. Public authorities familiar with the content of each basket provide interpretations of the indicators, assessing the state of the basket from the perspective of sustainable development. The updating process occurs between September and May, with a preliminary estimate for the timing of each basket’s update.
To sum up, sustainability checks are not legally required as part of RIAs, and they do not include analyses that span multiple time periods, including short-term, medium-term and long-term perspectives. The limitation of the mechanism is that there is no legal requirement for sustainability assessment, and there is no official government strategy for the implementation of Agenda 2030. However, the sustainability assessments draw upon a comprehensive set of appropriate impact indicators that encompass aspects of economic, social and environmental sustainability. The analyses are provided for different time periods, including short-term, medium-term and long-term perspectives.
Citations:
Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development. n.d. “Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development.” https://kestavakehitys.fi/en/commitment2050
However, the government does not have a specific strategy for implementing Agenda 2030 goals that has been broken down into concrete action plans. The status of sustainable development in Finland is systematically monitored through agreed-upon indicators within the National Sustainable Development Monitoring Network. Experts from various thematic areas compile annual assessments based on these indicators, providing comprehensive descriptions of the state of sustainable development in different domains. Citizens actively contribute to this assessment through the annual Citizens’ Panel on Sustainable Development. These facts demonstrate the capacity to monitor sustainable development.
The Prime Minister’s Office and the Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development review discussions, selecting topics for further promotion. Key messages are consolidated and presented annually in May at an event addressing the current state of and future prospects for sustainable development. The overarching objectives of the monitoring and ensuing discussions are to: 1) generate a holistic understanding of Finland’s success in advancing sustainable development; and 2) identify challenges and pain points in sustainable development, helping to inform the formulation of consistent policies.
The monitoring process aligns with the Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development instrument, encapsulated in “The Finland we want by 2050,” which serves as Finland’s implementation of the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. The commitment outlines eight objectives representing the envisioned state of sustainable development in Finland by 2050, as defined by the Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development in 2013 (Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development n.d.). Progress toward these objectives is monitored through 10 indicator baskets associated with the commitment. These indicators, established in 2017 by a network of experts, are updated annually. Public authorities familiar with the content of each basket provide interpretations of the indicators, assessing the state of the basket from the perspective of sustainable development. The updating process occurs between September and May, with a preliminary estimate for the timing of each basket’s update.
To sum up, sustainability checks are not legally required as part of RIAs, and they do not include analyses that span multiple time periods, including short-term, medium-term and long-term perspectives. The limitation of the mechanism is that there is no legal requirement for sustainability assessment, and there is no official government strategy for the implementation of Agenda 2030. However, the sustainability assessments draw upon a comprehensive set of appropriate impact indicators that encompass aspects of economic, social and environmental sustainability. The analyses are provided for different time periods, including short-term, medium-term and long-term perspectives.
Citations:
Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development. n.d. “Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development.” https://kestavakehitys.fi/en/commitment2050
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.
Consultation with experts and stakeholders is a normal phase in the Finnish lawmaking process. In addition, the public is invited to comment on draft proposals online. Furthermore, all proposals to change existing statutes must be accompanied by an assessment of their impact across several aspects of society, such as the economy and the environment. However, the major weakness of the regulatory framework is that ex post evaluations are not frequently carried out. Finland lacks a systematic strategy for the ex post evaluation of regulations. This means government ministries cannot utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies.
There is no law requiring the analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies through ex post evaluations. Parliament often accepts statements suggesting that the consequences of approved legislation should be monitored and analyzed. However, this rarely happens. Ex post evaluations are carried out on a case-by-case basis by government research institutes such as the Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Government Economic Research Institute (VATT). Evaluations are also conducted by the State Audit Office.
These evaluations usually meet minimum scientific standards. They provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators. They also use modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research. Stakeholders involved, particularly those who can provide empirical information on individuals’ experiences with and responses to public policy interventions, are included in these evaluations. The results of these ex post evaluations are regularly communicated to the public through evaluation reports.
Consequently, there is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a given regulatory change. It is not legally mandated to regularly communicate or make publicly available the results of ex post evaluations. There are no uniform scientific minimum standards for implementing ex post evaluations. There is no independent organizational body that conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results.
The results of ex post evaluations seldom lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation.
Citations:
“Säädösehdotusten vaikutusten arvionti,” Oikeusministeriö,
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76082/saadosehdotusten_vaikutusten_arviointi_ohj
eet.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
OECD. “Better Regulation in Europe: Finland.” http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/45054846.htm
OECD. 2018. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en
Opinion service webpage: lausuntopalvelu.fi
Governments Registry for Projects and Initiatives. http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hankkeet
There is no law requiring the analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies through ex post evaluations. Parliament often accepts statements suggesting that the consequences of approved legislation should be monitored and analyzed. However, this rarely happens. Ex post evaluations are carried out on a case-by-case basis by government research institutes such as the Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Government Economic Research Institute (VATT). Evaluations are also conducted by the State Audit Office.
These evaluations usually meet minimum scientific standards. They provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators. They also use modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research. Stakeholders involved, particularly those who can provide empirical information on individuals’ experiences with and responses to public policy interventions, are included in these evaluations. The results of these ex post evaluations are regularly communicated to the public through evaluation reports.
Consequently, there is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a given regulatory change. It is not legally mandated to regularly communicate or make publicly available the results of ex post evaluations. There are no uniform scientific minimum standards for implementing ex post evaluations. There is no independent organizational body that conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results.
The results of ex post evaluations seldom lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation.
Citations:
“Säädösehdotusten vaikutusten arvionti,” Oikeusministeriö,
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76082/saadosehdotusten_vaikutusten_arviointi_ohj
eet.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
OECD. “Better Regulation in Europe: Finland.” http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/45054846.htm
OECD. 2018. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en
Opinion service webpage: lausuntopalvelu.fi
Governments Registry for Projects and Initiatives. http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hankkeet