The report, Using Alternatives to Regulation to Achieve Policy Objectives, found that “few departments use the full range of evidence available to develop alternatives” to new rules.
It says that “policymakers need to consider alternatives early in policymaking” and that “starting early in the process reduces the chances a preferred option is identified before alternatives are explored.”
It continues: “A good quality consultation stage can also improve the appraisal of alternatives. Departments should ensure that the impact assessment properly assesses the costs and benefits of a range of policy options when entering consultation.”
The fact that departments aren’t required to carry out formal appraisals of alternatives, the report notes, creates risks, “such as: missing the impact on competition; creating more burden than the rules-based approach to regulation; or not maximising benefits over costs.”
The report also found that “few government departments use the full range of evidence available to develop alternatives.”