Every coalition agreement since the 2000s, following the establishment of Estonia's main institutions, has in some way mentioned the need to fight bureaucracy and reduce administrative burdens.

On the one hand, managing bureaucracy is an ongoing task that never truly ends. On the other, society expects assurances that the government genuinely has plans for some real changes. The most recent significant initiative was the "zero bureaucracy" project launched in 2015, during which some actual progress was made. However, within a few years, the momentum faded, and activities that contributed little to reducing administrative burdens began to be labeled under this effort.

The newly sworn-in government has promised a fresh initiative: a rule that for every new regulation imposing administrative burdens on businesses, an existing one must be repealed. Such one-for-one principles have been tested in several countries and, in some form, even within the European Commission. These measures aim to control overall legislation and specifically to curb the introduction of regulations that increase administrative burdens.

The first question that arises everywhere is how to measure administrative burden. And which units should be compared. Different regulatory requirements do not carry the same weight. For example, filling out an unnecessary line on an application form might take just a minute and require no additional action. But a new information requirement or a change in tax regulations could mean additional investment or extensive ongoing work for businesses.

Therefore, when it comes to reducing regulations that affect businesses, the focus has been on measuring the financial impact of the administrative burden. The goal is to reach a situation where the costs imposed by additional requirements on businesses are compensated by an equivalent reduction in costs through the repeal of other requirements. When the Finns began their experiments in 2017, they deliberately set aside the simple comparison of units as an unsuitable methodology and focused on developing a tool for assessing the cost of the administrative burden.

However, creating a reliable and practical methodology for calculating the cost of administrative burden has proven to be a very complex task everywhere. The debate over which costs should be considered and in what value seems endless.

The Finns have been developing their tool for seven years and acknowledge that the measurement itself requires substantial resources, specific skills and expertise. Several countries have reported positive results in fighting bureaucracy, but in the interest of simplicity and feasibility, they have significantly limited the costs considered in their methodologies.

For instance, while the U.K. government has reported reducing the administrative burden on businesses by billions of pounds, their highest audit authority, equivalent to Estonia's National Audit Office, has sharply criticized the calculation methodology used.

The British are also known for their approach where, after initially announcing a one-for-one rule in 2010, it was soon replaced with a one-for-two, and later even a one-for-three rule. This means that for every pound of additional cost imposed on businesses, they must be compensated with a reduction in administrative burden equivalent to three pounds. The reasoning is that under a one-for-one rule, the administrative burden wouldn't actually decrease but would remain the same. Therefore, the political rhetoric became increasingly ambitious.

Even the more modestly aimed Finns have not succeeded in preventing the additional administrative burden on businesses from increasing. Nevertheless, their administrative burden calculator continues to be developed and updated.

In summary, critics have labeled the one-for-one administrative burden reduction slogan as nothing more than a clever political trick, or even an illusion. However, it is still important to demonstrate political commitment and a willingness to move from vague promises to more concrete actions. It is essential to create a clear obligation to consider whether it is possible to alleviate the burden on businesses while imposing new requirements. Ultimately, we must start genuinely evaluating the costs that various regulations impose on businesses and how they hinder the economy and innovation.

Based on the experiences of other countries, there is unfortunately little hope of finding a methodology that is both manageable and sufficiently precise for us.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!