Sensemaking
#9Key Findings
In the category of sensemaking, Norway falls into the sample’s upper-middle ranks (rank 9).
The central government is rather rigid, but many individual organizations foster innovation, particularly in the area of the digital transformation. Regulatory agencies have also introduced sandboxes for controlled experimentation.
Norway’s regulatory impact assessment (RIA) system, involves comprehensive evaluations of policy proposals’ budgetary, environmental, health and human rights effects. Ministries have discretion to perform a full RIA or a less detailed assessment. There is no formal requirement for sustainability checks, other than the reference to environmental and social indicators.
Ex post evaluations are mandatory for government ministries and agencies, covering most policy sectors. Each ministry is responsible for evaluating policy results within its domain. The use of external consultants rather than internal ministerial review bodies has become increasingly common.
The central government is rather rigid, but many individual organizations foster innovation, particularly in the area of the digital transformation. Regulatory agencies have also introduced sandboxes for controlled experimentation.
Norway’s regulatory impact assessment (RIA) system, involves comprehensive evaluations of policy proposals’ budgetary, environmental, health and human rights effects. Ministries have discretion to perform a full RIA or a less detailed assessment. There is no formal requirement for sustainability checks, other than the reference to environmental and social indicators.
Ex post evaluations are mandatory for government ministries and agencies, covering most policy sectors. Each ministry is responsible for evaluating policy results within its domain. The use of external consultants rather than internal ministerial review bodies has become increasingly common.
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 Norwegian central government is relatively rigid and predictable in its approaches, but many organizations have innovative cultures and units dedicated to anticipating future events, often related to digital transformation. Many agencies collaborate closely with research institutes to improve their services. For example, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration invests significantly in using artificial intelligence and machine learning for decision-making to enhance services, in collaboration with various research institutes.
Many regulatory agencies have developed regulatory sandboxes, allowing government entities and private corporations to experiment in a controlled test environment. The Labour and Welfare Administration, for instance, has worked closely with the Norwegian Data Protection Authority to explore how different types of personal information can be utilized to improve services. Other regulatory agencies, such as the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway and the National Archives of Norway, also use regulatory sandboxes.
The Norwegian Tax Administration is considered one of the most innovative organizations in the country. It is relatively advanced in digital transformation, encourages experimentation, and maintains a long-term perspective on innovation and public sector changes. It collaborates closely on digitalization with universities, including the Norwegian School of Economics and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and is a significant actor in the Open AI Lab.
At a general level, the Norwegian Digitalization Agency is the primary organization responsible for improving the public sector and facilitating more coordinated digital activities. The agency has high ambitions for innovation and collaborates with government agencies, municipalities, the private sector, and voluntary organizations to achieve this. Overall, the government can be considered innovative, though it is not uncommon for IT projects to take longer than planned. Such projects don’t always produce effective policies and can be criticized by the public. One example is the Health Platform (Helseplattformen), intended to improve patients’ health records, but it has been criticized by health personnel for numerous reasons, including poor technical systems.
Citations:
Finansdepartementet. 2018. “Etablering av regulatorisk sandkasse for fintech.” https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/etablering-av-regulatorisk-sandkasse-for-fintech/id2618678/
Arkivverket. n.d. “Regulatorisk sandkasse.” https://www.arkivverket.no/arkivutvikling/innebygd-arkivering/regulatorisk-sandkasse
Data Protection Authority. n.d. “Regulatory Privacy Sandbox.” https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/sandbox-for-artificial-intelligence/
Skatteetaten. 2020. “NHH oppretter nytt innovasjonssenter og Skatteetaten er med som samarbeidspartner.” https://www.skatteetaten.no/presse/nyhetsrommet/nhh-oppretter-nytt-innovasjonssenter-og-skatteetaten-er-med-som-samarbeidspartner/
Norwegian Digitalization Agency. n.d. “About the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency.” https://www.digdir.no/digdir/about-norwegian-digitalisation-agency/887
Many regulatory agencies have developed regulatory sandboxes, allowing government entities and private corporations to experiment in a controlled test environment. The Labour and Welfare Administration, for instance, has worked closely with the Norwegian Data Protection Authority to explore how different types of personal information can be utilized to improve services. Other regulatory agencies, such as the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway and the National Archives of Norway, also use regulatory sandboxes.
The Norwegian Tax Administration is considered one of the most innovative organizations in the country. It is relatively advanced in digital transformation, encourages experimentation, and maintains a long-term perspective on innovation and public sector changes. It collaborates closely on digitalization with universities, including the Norwegian School of Economics and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and is a significant actor in the Open AI Lab.
At a general level, the Norwegian Digitalization Agency is the primary organization responsible for improving the public sector and facilitating more coordinated digital activities. The agency has high ambitions for innovation and collaborates with government agencies, municipalities, the private sector, and voluntary organizations to achieve this. Overall, the government can be considered innovative, though it is not uncommon for IT projects to take longer than planned. Such projects don’t always produce effective policies and can be criticized by the public. One example is the Health Platform (Helseplattformen), intended to improve patients’ health records, but it has been criticized by health personnel for numerous reasons, including poor technical systems.
Citations:
Finansdepartementet. 2018. “Etablering av regulatorisk sandkasse for fintech.” https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/etablering-av-regulatorisk-sandkasse-for-fintech/id2618678/
Arkivverket. n.d. “Regulatorisk sandkasse.” https://www.arkivverket.no/arkivutvikling/innebygd-arkivering/regulatorisk-sandkasse
Data Protection Authority. n.d. “Regulatory Privacy Sandbox.” https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/sandbox-for-artificial-intelligence/
Skatteetaten. 2020. “NHH oppretter nytt innovasjonssenter og Skatteetaten er med som samarbeidspartner.” https://www.skatteetaten.no/presse/nyhetsrommet/nhh-oppretter-nytt-innovasjonssenter-og-skatteetaten-er-med-som-samarbeidspartner/
Norwegian Digitalization Agency. n.d. “About the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency.” https://www.digdir.no/digdir/about-norwegian-digitalisation-agency/887
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.
Norway introduced a system of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in 1985, which was last revised in 2016. The ministers and the government are jointly responsible for providing comprehensive assessments of the potential budgetary, environmental, health, and human-rights effects of their policy proposals. Consequences are to be quantified to the extent possible, including through a thorough, realistic socioeconomic analysis. A set of codified guidelines, the Instructions for Official Studies and Reports, governs the production of RIAs.
However, the ministry in charge has some discretion regarding when an RIA should be conducted. There is no formal rule establishing when a full RIA must be produced and when a less detailed assessment is sufficient. If performed, RIAs are included as a separate section in the ad hoc reports commissioned from experts or broader committees, as well as in white papers and final bills. There is no central body within the government administration that quality-controls RIAs, although each department has issued guidelines on how RIAs should be conducted. Parliament may send back a policy proposal if it regards the attached RIA as unsatisfactory. This has occurred in a number of cases.
A complete RIA is required to list private parties and interests that will be affected. While it is not legally required, it is standard procedure for policy proposals to be sent for a public hearing. In principle, any private party may comment on the proposals.
In 2017, an additional legal requirement was introduced to ensure that consideration for the environment and society is accounted for during the preparation of plans and initiatives, as well as when deciding on what conditions those plans or initiatives may be implemented.
To systematically assess the impacts of new legislation on economic activity and enterprises, and to remove “unnecessary” regulations, a separate body, The Norwegian Better Regulation Council, was established in 2015. The Council is an arms-length oversight body issuing advisory statements on proposals for new regulation of the business sector at the stage of public consultation. The goal is to contribute to the reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses and achieve overall more efficient regulation.
Citations:
Ministry of Climate and Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. 2017. “Regulations on Impact Assessments.” https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/regulations-on-impact-assessments/id2573435/
However, the ministry in charge has some discretion regarding when an RIA should be conducted. There is no formal rule establishing when a full RIA must be produced and when a less detailed assessment is sufficient. If performed, RIAs are included as a separate section in the ad hoc reports commissioned from experts or broader committees, as well as in white papers and final bills. There is no central body within the government administration that quality-controls RIAs, although each department has issued guidelines on how RIAs should be conducted. Parliament may send back a policy proposal if it regards the attached RIA as unsatisfactory. This has occurred in a number of cases.
A complete RIA is required to list private parties and interests that will be affected. While it is not legally required, it is standard procedure for policy proposals to be sent for a public hearing. In principle, any private party may comment on the proposals.
In 2017, an additional legal requirement was introduced to ensure that consideration for the environment and society is accounted for during the preparation of plans and initiatives, as well as when deciding on what conditions those plans or initiatives may be implemented.
To systematically assess the impacts of new legislation on economic activity and enterprises, and to remove “unnecessary” regulations, a separate body, The Norwegian Better Regulation Council, was established in 2015. The Council is an arms-length oversight body issuing advisory statements on proposals for new regulation of the business sector at the stage of public consultation. The goal is to contribute to the reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses and achieve overall more efficient regulation.
Citations:
Ministry of Climate and Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. 2017. “Regulations on Impact Assessments.” https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/regulations-on-impact-assessments/id2573435/
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.
There is no formal requirement for sustainability checks in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) regime. Sustainability impact assessments, as defined by the OECD, should include all three dimensions of sustainability. Since the inclusion of considerations for both society and the environment in the Norwegian RIA regulation in 2017, one could argue that sustainability checks are being performed, even without an explicit formal requirement.
In practice, two indirect mechanisms strengthen the de facto sustainability assessments. First, all new policy initiatives must align with Norway’s commitments to adopt EU policies, as laid out in Norway’s EEA agreement with the EU. Second, new policies must not violate Norway’s international commitments and obligations. This implies that sustainability assessments are being conducted, but not in a nationally standardized manner, nor are they systematically monitored.
In practice, two indirect mechanisms strengthen the de facto sustainability assessments. First, all new policy initiatives must align with Norway’s commitments to adopt EU policies, as laid out in Norway’s EEA agreement with the EU. Second, new policies must not violate Norway’s international commitments and obligations. This implies that sustainability assessments are being conducted, but not in a nationally standardized manner, nor are they systematically monitored.
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.
Evaluations are mandatory for government ministries and agencies in Norway. The government utilizes evaluations across most policy sectors and issue areas. Each ministry is responsible for evaluating policy results within its domain. Evaluations are conducted either by external experts or internal ministerial review bodies. Sometimes evaluations are intended to measure the effect of reforms, although more frequently, they serve as a starting point for future reform processes. There is broad support for evidence-based policymaking, and the results of policy evaluations tend to attract considerable attention. Research indicates that the volume of evaluations has decreased over the last decade and a half, and that evaluations are increasingly performed by consultants rather than research institutes. A possible consequence may be that information relevant to policymaking is less publicly available than before.
Citations:
Askim, J., Døving, E., and Johnsen, Å. 2021. “Evaluation in Norway: A 25-Year Assessment.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 25 (3/4): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7087
Citations:
Askim, J., Døving, E., and Johnsen, Å. 2021. “Evaluation in Norway: A 25-Year Assessment.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 25 (3/4): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7087