Sensemaking
#17Key Findings
Lithuania falls into the sample’s middle ranks (rank 17) in the category of sensemaking.
The government has sought to strategic foresight, with the Government Strategic Analysis Center playing a key role. The Lithuania 2050 strategy is a key example of this effort.
Regulatory impact assessment are required, but quality is poor. Several governments have sought to improve the process, but the gap between formal requirements and actual process remains wide. Sustainability assessments are formally required, but in practice are typically absent.
Ex post assessments are also typically low quality, with only a few having been completed by the end of 2023. Policy measures that rely on EU funding are an exception.
The government has sought to strategic foresight, with the Government Strategic Analysis Center playing a key role. The Lithuania 2050 strategy is a key example of this effort.
Regulatory impact assessment are required, but quality is poor. Several governments have sought to improve the process, but the gap between formal requirements and actual process remains wide. Sustainability assessments are formally required, but in practice are typically absent.
Ex post assessments are also typically low quality, with only a few having been completed by the end of 2023. Policy measures that rely on EU funding are an exception.
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.
The central government is often able to foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization. The Government Strategic Analysis Center (STRATA) has actively introduced strategic foresight into its work. The preparation of the long-term Lithuania 2050 strategy, which took place in 2022 – 2023, is perhaps the most visible example of such an exercise. STRATA experts, who led this process, consulted and used best practices from the Joint Research Center of the European Commission and several EU member states in employing strategic foresight methodology to guide the process.
The legal basis establishing the National Crisis Management Center was drafted in 2022, and the institution began operation in early 2023. It is doing important work in anticipating and preparing for potential crises. Additionally, the establishment of the Committee of the Future in the Seimas after the 2020 parliamentary elections and its work in organizing thematic discussions has also helped foster a culture of strategic foresight.
However, the methods of strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation need to be used more systematically. Their systematic use is constrained by low capacities across government policy units and by the underdeveloped culture of policy experimentation and ex ante impact assessments in the process of preparing draft laws.
The legal basis establishing the National Crisis Management Center was drafted in 2022, and the institution began operation in early 2023. It is doing important work in anticipating and preparing for potential crises. Additionally, the establishment of the Committee of the Future in the Seimas after the 2020 parliamentary elections and its work in organizing thematic discussions has also helped foster a culture of strategic foresight.
However, the methods of strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation need to be used more systematically. Their systematic use is constrained by low capacities across government policy units and by the underdeveloped culture of policy experimentation and ex ante impact assessments in the process of preparing draft laws.
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.
Ex ante impact assessments have been legally required since 2003, after Lithuania’s accession to the EU. However, the quality of these assessments has been poor, with the process turning into a purely formal exercise often summarized by the repeated phrase “no negative impact foreseen.” This statement is usually made without a timely and proper analysis of the potential impact of draft legislation, and without full consideration of alternative ways to achieve the desired policy goals. Additionally, stakeholder consultations are rarely properly conducted, even though guidelines for these consultations are prepared and publicly available on the government website.
There have been several attempts by different governments to improve the actual practice of impact assessments, including the efforts of the coalition government formed in late 2020. The government led by Ingrida Šimonytė committed in its program to focus on the quality rather than quantity of legislation, and to properly assess the impact of draft laws. It approved a list of priority legislative initiatives that had to be accompanied by impact assessments.
STRATA updated the methodology for this task, and in 2021 – 2023, organized trainings for civil servants on how to properly carry out impact assessments, including the role of consultations with stakeholders and assessments of different alternatives. Its experts also routinely consult with line ministries, advising them on specific impact assessments being undertaken. However, the gap between what is formally required and what is the actual practice remains wide, and the main observation of the OECD in its 2021 report that “most RIAs are conducted as a formality, with limited impact” remains largely valid.
Citations:
STRATA. “Impact assessment” (in Lithuanian). https://strata.gov.lt/poveikio-vertinimas/
OECD. 2021. Mobilising Evidence at the Center of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy.
Evaluation for Long-term Development. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en
There have been several attempts by different governments to improve the actual practice of impact assessments, including the efforts of the coalition government formed in late 2020. The government led by Ingrida Šimonytė committed in its program to focus on the quality rather than quantity of legislation, and to properly assess the impact of draft laws. It approved a list of priority legislative initiatives that had to be accompanied by impact assessments.
STRATA updated the methodology for this task, and in 2021 – 2023, organized trainings for civil servants on how to properly carry out impact assessments, including the role of consultations with stakeholders and assessments of different alternatives. Its experts also routinely consult with line ministries, advising them on specific impact assessments being undertaken. However, the gap between what is formally required and what is the actual practice remains wide, and the main observation of the OECD in its 2021 report that “most RIAs are conducted as a formality, with limited impact” remains largely valid.
Citations:
STRATA. “Impact assessment” (in Lithuanian). https://strata.gov.lt/poveikio-vertinimas/
OECD. 2021. Mobilising Evidence at the Center of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy.
Evaluation for Long-term Development. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en
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.
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments. Formally, sustainability assessments must be considered when conducting impact assessments. However, because the impact assessments are often not conducted properly, the sustainability assessments are also typically absent.
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.
The culture of ex post impact assessments emerged following EU accession, when the use of EU funding necessitated evaluating the effects of those investments. Consequently, compulsory requirements to assess the impact of EU funding became a significant factor in the adoption of such assessments. Additionally, some audits conducted by the National Audit Office can also be considered ex post impact assessments.
The new factor that mobilized the government’s attention to the issue of ex post (and overall) impact assessments was the accession into the OECD in 2018. The OECD’s advice and provision of best practices, as well as comparative studies on the use of impact assessments, increased political attention to these instruments of evidence-informed policymaking. The government adopted a formal methodology for conducting ex post impact assessments in May 2021. Subsequently, it also approved a list of 14 legal norms to be assessed using this methodology. In 2023, STRATA organized several training sessions for civil servants on how to conduct ex post impact assessments. However, by the end of 2023, only a few ex post impact assessments had been completed. Similar to ex ante evaluation, ex post impact assessment is still more of a formal requirement than an instrument for improving the quality of policies, with the exception of policy measures that rely on EU funding.
The new factor that mobilized the government’s attention to the issue of ex post (and overall) impact assessments was the accession into the OECD in 2018. The OECD’s advice and provision of best practices, as well as comparative studies on the use of impact assessments, increased political attention to these instruments of evidence-informed policymaking. The government adopted a formal methodology for conducting ex post impact assessments in May 2021. Subsequently, it also approved a list of 14 legal norms to be assessed using this methodology. In 2023, STRATA organized several training sessions for civil servants on how to conduct ex post impact assessments. However, by the end of 2023, only a few ex post impact assessments had been completed. Similar to ex ante evaluation, ex post impact assessment is still more of a formal requirement than an instrument for improving the quality of policies, with the exception of policy measures that rely on EU funding.