The rhinoceros is reputed to be a single-minded and short-sighted animal. The current European Commission’s determination to make “better regulation” its historical contribution to the shaping of Europe smacks of the same obduracy and myopia.

“Better regulation”? Who could be against that? It would be like complaining about sunny weather. But the eye-catching label is on a bottle of bitter potion. So what exactly is it about? The basic idea boils down to two things.

The first is explicitly stated, the second implied:
1. Public regulation of any kind is apt to hold back business growth, especially where firms are bound by obligations to society and accountable for what they do in different ways. So it is about cutting the red tape on firms, especially their duty of information;
2. The only good legal rule is one that works to grow the economy. The legitimacy of public intervention must be measured by impact analyses, which means different kinds of cost-benefit assessment.

These ideas hark back to former US President Ronald Reagan’s administration of the early 1980s. In “Reaganomics”, the State was not the solution to the problem, it was the problem. An odd claim by the man who as chief executive of the world’s most powerful state headed up an unprecedented military machine. The deregulation credo found willing ears in Mrs Thatcher’s Britain. The New Labour government spun it, but never disowned that legacy.

Meanwhile, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) formed a kind of pro-deregulation think tank by setting up co-operation between deregulators of the leading industrialized countries. The OECD sponsors the models for calculating the costs of regulation that so appealed to the Barroso Commission. The results yielded by these models are lacking in serious substantiation. But so what? The economic calculation is just a smokescreen. The real point lies elsewhere: it is about more self-regulation by business, cutting the information firms have to give to the public authorities, their workers or consumers. It is less an economic than a political issue. Putting more power in the hands of employers creates a policy-making system unhampered by the annoyances of democratic elections.

The current financial debacle ought to have dampened the deregulationist zeal. It again gives the lie to the old free-market credo that the sum of individual selfishness will add up to the common good. Telephone-number amounts are being poured into bailing out the financial system, but the political lesson of 25 years of deregulation has not been learned.

The Commission’s chosen path for health and safety at work calls into question the entire policy thrust followed since 1989. The duty to inform is the Community directives’ single biggest contribution, reflecting an intention to establish a management systems approach to health and safety. But you cannot manage without information that is collected, stored and processed. Workers cannot participate unless that information is communicated and discussed. The public authorities cannot police compliance without information from employers. Cutting down information requirements inevitably undermines prevention. Workers and society will pay a high price for the administrative costs saved in the form of work-related accidents and diseases.

The “better regulation” lobby hide behind the sophistry of protecting small and medium-size businesses (SMEs). It is a myth that must be debunked. All available research shows that ludicrously little time is spent on prevention in SMEs. A preventive strategy means beefing up, not cutting down, the health and safety management obligations of SMEs. The real issue is far less “how much” than “how well”. SMEs too often resort to outside consultants who often go through the motions of what can be a costly tick-box exercise. In this area, it is the lack of regulation that has a cost and constitutes an obstacle. This is precisely the paradox of the rhinoceros charge – a blind rush towards an object which is often not what they think it is. The real object is elsewhere. But they do not see it, and still less do they care. 

Editorial ETUI

Table of contents

The “better regulation” rhinoceros

Related content

The European Union versus the Better Regulation Agenda

This report critically examines progress on the European Union’s ‘Better Regulation Agenda’. Although originally intended to simplify the EU’s legislation and improve its quality, there are suspicions that the Agenda has been hijacked to be used as a tool to make companies more competitive. The author argues that this risks further fueling... Find out more

'Better regulation': a bureaucratic simplification with a political agenda

This Working Paper aims to shed light on the machinations behind recent developments regarding the Better Regulation agenda. How should we interpret the Commission’s insistence on relentlessly attacking its own legislation? Why does it constantly refer to the costs, yet never once mention the benefits? Eric van de Abeele, who has already written... Find out more

Community bureaucracy and “better regulation”… pot – kettle?

For some years now, the European Commission has been spawning bureaucratic bodies set up to “combat bureaucracy”, or more accurately, to rid public policies of what annoys employers. One of the most recent is a “High Level Group” set up in August 2007 supposedly to represent independent stakeholders. It consists largely of representatives of... Find out more

Better regulation: a critical assessment

"This report is on the European Commission's "better regulation" programme. The Commission is promising that scrapping or revising a number of directives will save businesses around 40 billion euros by reducing the "administrative formalities" they impose. In Better Regulation: a critical assessment, Laurent Vogel (ETUI) and Eric Van den Abeele... Find out more

Better Regulation: really better for health and safety at work in Europe?

In a chilling announcement, the Commission claims that its plan for better regulation should enable savings of 150 billion euros for 2012 through a 25% cut in the administrative burden on business. The figure may be questionable, but a close look at the specific proposals seems to leave little doubt that much of the handout to business will come at... Find out more

The European union's better regulation agenda

Despite the meltdown caused by deregulation in the financial sector, the Barroso Commission continues to push Better Regulation as delivering light-touch, business-friendly lawmaking. This report explains the ins and outs of the Better Regulation agenda, and answers many of the questions raised by this programme that it is claimed will improve the... Find out more

Laurent Vogel, Denis Grégoire

HESA Newsletter. Special report - Better regulation

Simplifying and improving the EU regulatory environment is one of the Barroso Commission’s main instruments within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy. Dubbed "better regulation", the initiative could allow businesses to save billions of euros, according to the Commission. This issue uncovers the hidden side of this campaign that could undermine... Find out more