1. Definição do problema |
Dudley et al. (2017Dudley, S., Belzer, R., Blomquist, G., Brennan, T., Carrigan, C., Cordes, J., … Zerbe, R. (2017). Consumer’s guide to regulatory impact analysis: ten tips for being an informed policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 187-204. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11 https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11...
); Souto-Otero (2013Souto-Otero, M. (2013). Is “better regulation” possible? Formal and substantive quality in the impact assessments in education and culture of the European Commission. Evidence and Policy, 9(4), 513-529. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662725 https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662725...
) |
2,57 |
51,4% |
1,12 |
2. Natureza (falha de mercado, falha regulatória etc.) |
Dudley et al. (2017Dudley, S., Belzer, R., Blomquist, G., Brennan, T., Carrigan, C., Cordes, J., … Zerbe, R. (2017). Consumer’s guide to regulatory impact analysis: ten tips for being an informed policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 187-204. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11 https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11...
); Ellig e Mclaughlin (2012Ellig, J., & Mclaughlin, P. A. (2012). The Quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008. Risk Analysis, 32(5), 855-880. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01715.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011...
) |
0,48 |
9,5% |
1,08 |
3. Uso de evidências |
Dudley et al. (2017Dudley, S., Belzer, R., Blomquist, G., Brennan, T., Carrigan, C., Cordes, J., … Zerbe, R. (2017). Consumer’s guide to regulatory impact analysis: ten tips for being an informed policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 187-204. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11 https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11...
); Ellig e Mclaughlin (2012Ellig, J., & Mclaughlin, P. A. (2012). The Quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008. Risk Analysis, 32(5), 855-880. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01715.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011...
) |
1,14 |
22,9% |
1,59 |
4. Experiência internacional |
Decreto nº 10.411, de 30 de junho de 2020Decreto nº 10.411, de 30 de junho de 2020. (2020). Regulamenta a análise de impacto regulatório, de que tratam o art. 5º da Lei nº 13.874, de 20 de setembro de 2019, e o art. 6º da Lei nº 13.848, de 25 de junho de 2019. Brasília, DF. Recuperado dehttp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/d10411.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_at...
|
0,57 |
11,4% |
1,25 |
5. Incertezas sobre o problema |
Ellig e Mclaughlin (2012Ellig, J., & Mclaughlin, P. A. (2012). The Quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008. Risk Analysis, 32(5), 855-880. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01715.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011...
) |
0,00 |
0,0% |
0,00 |
6. Mapeamento de causas |
Mota et al. (2020Mota, D., Saab, F., Vazzoler, R., Schunig, K., Donagema, E., & Troncoso, G. (2020). Regulatory impact assessment in pandemic times: a practical exercise on the COVID-19 context. Revista do Serviço Público, 71, 165-88. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824 https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824...
); Snowdon, Schultz, e Swinburn (2008Snowdon, W., Schultz, J., & Swinburn, B. (2008). Problem and solution trees: a practical approach for identifying potential interventions to improve population nutrition. Health Promotion International, 23(4), 345-53. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027...
) |
0,81 |
16,2% |
1,47 |
7. Identificação da causa raiz |
Mota et al. (2020Mota, D., Saab, F., Vazzoler, R., Schunig, K., Donagema, E., & Troncoso, G. (2020). Regulatory impact assessment in pandemic times: a practical exercise on the COVID-19 context. Revista do Serviço Público, 71, 165-88. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824 https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824...
); Snowdon et al. (2008Snowdon, W., Schultz, J., & Swinburn, B. (2008). Problem and solution trees: a practical approach for identifying potential interventions to improve population nutrition. Health Promotion International, 23(4), 345-53. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027...
) |
0,38 |
7,6% |
1,20 |
8. Mapeamento de consequências |
Mota et al. (2020Mota, D., Saab, F., Vazzoler, R., Schunig, K., Donagema, E., & Troncoso, G. (2020). Regulatory impact assessment in pandemic times: a practical exercise on the COVID-19 context. Revista do Serviço Público, 71, 165-88. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824 https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v71i0.4824...
); Snowdon et al. (2008Snowdon, W., Schultz, J., & Swinburn, B. (2008). Problem and solution trees: a practical approach for identifying potential interventions to improve population nutrition. Health Promotion International, 23(4), 345-53. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan027...
) |
0,95 |
19,0% |
1,53 |
9. Tendências de evolução do problema |
Dudley et al. (2017Dudley, S., Belzer, R., Blomquist, G., Brennan, T., Carrigan, C., Cordes, J., … Zerbe, R. (2017). Consumer’s guide to regulatory impact analysis: ten tips for being an informed policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 187-204. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11 https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2017.11...
) |
0,43 |
8,6% |
0,98 |
10. Mapeamento dos atores afetados |
Staroňová |
2,57 |
51,4% |
1,12 |
11. Distribuição dos efeitos sobre cada grupo afetado |
Staroňová et al. (2007Staroňová, K., Pavel, J., & Krapež, K. (2007). Piloting regulatory impact assessment: a comparative analysis of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(4), 271-80. Recuperado dehttps://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X246314 https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X246314...
) |
1,10 |
21,9% |
1,73 |
12. Base legal |
Decreto nº 10.411, de 30 de junho de 2020Decreto nº 10.411, de 30 de junho de 2020. (2020). Regulamenta a análise de impacto regulatório, de que tratam o art. 5º da Lei nº 13.874, de 20 de setembro de 2019, e o art. 6º da Lei nº 13.848, de 25 de junho de 2019. Brasília, DF. Recuperado dehttp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/d10411.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_at...
|
4,43 |
88,6% |
0,98 |