Impact assessments

The plan says nothing about the regulations for impact assessments. The closest lying principle is that different legitimate interests must always be weighed against each other in politics, and that environmental threats require powerful legislation and long-term societal planning — which requires that decision-making materials are sound. A review of deficient impact assessments therefore does not conflict with the plan, but the conclusion rests on weak ground.

• interest balancing in decisionsdecisive»Som i all politik måste olika legitima intressen vägas mot varandra« (party programme ↗)“As in all politics, different legitimate interests must always be weighed against each other”
• powerful and planned legislation»Därför behövs en kraftfull lagstiftning, ekonomiska styrmedel, långsiktig samhällsplanering, klimatinvesteringar och miljöinriktad näringspolitik för att miljöhoten ska kunna bemästras.« (party programme ↗)“Therefore, powerful legislation, economic policy instruments, long-term societal planning, climate investments and environmentally directed business policy are needed to master environmental threats.”
• regulations must target companies»Det är företagen som överlägset står för de flesta ekobrotten, inte enskilda som fuskar med våra trygghetssystem.« (party programme ↗)“It is companies that by far account for the most economic crimes, not individuals who cheat our security systems.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The documents do not address the regulatory framework for impact assessments. The nearest principle is the party programme's requirement that rules for business be clear and comprehensible, together with the election manifesto's will to strengthen the long-term conditions for business. Derived from that, a review that improves impact assessments is supported, but the basis is weak.

• clear and comprehensible rulesdecisive»Reglerna för företagsamheten ska vara« (party programme ↗)“Rules for business shall be”
• strengthened business conditions»Stärk de långsiktiga förutsättningarna för företagande och innovation.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen the long-term conditions for business and innovation.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan does not address the regulations for impact assessments, but requires active regulatory simplification work and that political decisions be preceded by impact analysis, in the plan's case child impact analysis. Industry shall further be given long-term and stable ground rules. A review that corrects shortcomings in impact assessments thus receives a derived support.

• active regulatory simplification workdecisive»Onödig byråkrati ska undvikas genom ett aktivt regelförenklingsarbete.« (party programme ↗)“Unnecessary bureaucracy shall be avoided through active regulatory simplification work.”
• impact analysis of decisions»politiska beslut bör föregås av en barnkonsekvensanalys« (party programme ↗)“political decisions should be preceded by a child impact analysis”
• long-term ground rules»Näringslivet ska ges långsiktiga spelregler som skapar stabila förutsättningar för investeringar.« (party programme ↗)“Industry shall be given long-term ground rules that create stable conditions for investments.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan commits the party to clearing away the regulatory maze and reducing the administrative burden on small businesses, and the party programme requires given and predictable rules in the economy. Impact assessments are the tool that shall capture regulatory burden before rules are introduced, so a review of shortcomings in them aligns with the plan. However, impact assessments are not explicitly mentioned.

• clear away the regulatory mazedecisive»Rensa upp i regelträsket för entreprenörer, stora som små. Vi vill införa en ny och förenklad företagsform för mikroföretag, så att fler ska våga testa att driva företag.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Clear away the regulatory maze for entrepreneurs, large and small. We want to introduce a new and simplified business form for microenterprises, so that more people dare to try running a business.”
• reduced regulatory burden»minska den administrativa bördan för små och nystartade företag.« (party programme ↗)“reduce the administrative burden on small and newly started businesses.”
• predictable rules»Ekonomin ska ha givna och förutsägbara spelregler,« (party programme ↗)“The economy shall have given and predictable rules,”

The plan requires that public decisions be analyzed from a small business perspective and that regulatory burden for small businesses decrease, which presupposes that impact assessments maintain quality. Shortcomings in the assessments undermine that very commitment, which argues for a review of the regulations. The plan also wants rules of the game that make it easy to do right.

• impact analysis from business perspectivedecisive»offentliga beslut analyseras ur småföretagarperspektiv« (party programme ↗)“public decisions are analyzed from a small business perspective”
• reduced regulatory burden»Regelbördan för små företag ska minska« (party programme ↗)“Regulatory burden for small businesses shall decrease”
• clear rules of the game»Vi vill ha spelregler som gör det lätt att göra rätt« (party programme ↗)“We want rules of the game that make it easy to do right”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires that all political decisions are analysed for their consequences, and that incoming laws are tested from a small business perspective. Follow-up and quality control are according to the plan an important political task. Shortcomings in the impact assessments undermine precisely this, which is why a review of the regulatory framework is in line with the plan.

• impact analysis of decisionsdecisive»alla politiska beslut analyseras utifrån vilka konsekvenser de får« (party programme ↗)“all political decisions are analysed for their consequences”
• testing from a business perspective»Tillkommande lagar bör prövas ur ett småföretagarperspektiv.« (party programme ↗)“Incoming laws should be tested from a small business perspective.”
• follow-up and quality control»Utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll är därför viktiga politiska« (party programme ↗)“Evaluation, cost follow-up and quality control are therefore important political”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan's core commitment in this area is that one-third of regulatory red tape should be removed and that agencies' processing should be accelerated, which requires that the consequences of rules are actually examined. The programme establishes that reforms shall rest on research and proven experience and that implemented solutions shall constantly be reconsidered. A review of the regulatory framework for impact assessments follows from this.

• reduced regulatory burdendecisive»Ta bort en tredjedel av företagens administrationskostnader och en tredjedel av regelkrånglet« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Remove one-third of companies' administrative costs and one-third of regulatory red tape”
• constant reconsideration»beredskap för att utvärdera, ompröva, förändra och förbättra« (party programme ↗)“readiness to evaluate, reconsider, change and improve”
• more efficient agency processes»Korta myndigheternas handläggningstider genom en bortre tidsgräns« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Shorten agencies' processing times through an upper time limit”

flags: citat_blockerat

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan establishes that new rules should be cost-effective and that existing rules need to be reviewed, and that every public investment should demonstrate clear results. A review of the regulatory framework for impact assessments is precisely a tool to ensure that rules are tested against their costs to businesses. The counter-proposal's demand therefore aligns with the plan's direction.

• cost-effective rulesdecisive»Nya regler ska vara kostnadseffektiva och befintliga regler behöver ses över.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“New rules should be cost-effective and existing rules need to be reviewed.”
• test rules against benefit»För att få fler och växande företag är det viktigt att ta bort onödiga regler där kostnaderna för företagen inte motsvarar nyttan för samhället.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“To get more and growing businesses, it is important to remove unnecessary rules where the costs to businesses do not correspond to the benefit to society.”
• results requirement for decisions»Begära tydliga resultat för varje offentlig satsning« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Demand clear results for every public investment”
• regulatory simplification for small businesses»Verka för regelförenkling och avlasta småföretagens administrativa börda« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Work for regulatory simplification and reduce small businesses' administrative burden”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.