Walkenhorst, Peter and Ghafele, Roya (2004): Regulatory Reflorm in Germany: Enhancing Market Openness through Regulatory Reform.
Download (324kB) | Preview
This report assesses the impact of regulations and the regulatory process in Germany on trade and investment, as well as the extent to which market openness considerations are incorporated into the general policy framework for regulations. The assessment is based on six efficient regulation principles developed by the OECD, namely: transparency, non-discrimination; avoidance of unnecessary trade restrictiveness; use of internationally harmonized standards; streamlining conformity assessment; and integration of competition principles into the regulatory framework.
Through broad application of the six efficient regulation principles Germany has been very successful in establishing a regulatory framework that has competently underpinned German participation international competition and the global economy. International stakeholders trading with or investing in Germany are confronted with an extensively elaborated regulatory framework of high quality. Particular mention may be made of the important steps taken to facilitate customs procedures, with a positive impact on trade flows. Equally, the country has taken a leading role in contributing to the spread of internationally harmonized standards and the recognition of foreign measures.
The reduction of barriers to trade and investment worldwide has enabled Germany to take advantage of the expanding global market. At the same time a gradually more open market in Germany has provided benefits to consumers and contributed to economic growth and innovation. The progressive liberalisation of the German market has been driven not only by domestic forces, but even more so by regulations that follow from agreements at the regional and international level.
Despite Germany's success in establishing a regulatory system that strongly supports market openness, there remains room for improvement in some areas. The general accessibility of regulatory information permits high levels of transparency; however, the extreme complexity of the legal architecture represents a significant challenge to new market entrants, particularly foreigners. Non-domestic stakeholders may need a substantial amount of time and resources to understand various and occasionally duplicative regulations and institutions applying them. This circumstance is rendered more acute by the exactness with which the regulatory framework is implemented.
In addition, there is room for progress in the area of public procurement, where the country is not profiting from the opportunity of taking a forefront position within the EU which would reflect its economic capacity. Among EU countries Germany has the lowest level of public procurement tenders openly advertised at the European level and does not provide adequate legal protection for bidders competing for tenders below the EU threshold.
In Germany, like in other EU countries, the regulatory processes in areas directly or indirectly affecting trade and investment are initiated at the EU level or directed by decisions of the EU with implementation often taking place at the national level. Reflecting this distribution of responsibilities, there is a tendency at the national level not to consider the full extent of international implications. At the national level the advantages of adopting an international perspective are not yet taken to their full extent. To give an example, regulatory impact assessments do not explicitly address trade and investment related aspects.
The German administration is aware of the need to further change the regulatory framework in order to enhance economic growth. Several promising ongoing reform initiatives address many, if not most, areas covered in this report. The impact and pace of these reforms remains to be seen and evaluated.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Regulatory Reflorm in Germany: Enhancing Market Openness through Regulatory Reform|
|Keywords:||Regulatory reform, trade, market access, non-tariff measures|
|Subjects:||F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade
H - Public Economics > H8 - Miscellaneous Issues > H83 - Public Administration ; Public Sector Accounting and Audits
|Depositing User:||Peter Walkenhorst|
|Date Deposited:||20. Dec 2008 07:28|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 21:22|
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2002). Zoll Online 2005: Internetprojekt der Bundeszollverwaltung. Berlin.
Bundeskartellamt (2000). Unsere Tätigkeit in den Jahren 1999 und 2000. Bonn.
Bundesregierung (2002). Modern State – Modern Administration. Progress Report. Berlin.
Deutsche Ausgleichsbank (1999). Gründungsbremse Bürokratie. Bonn.
DIN (2000). Gesamtwirtschaftlicher Nutzen der Normung: Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse. Berlin.
DIN (2001). DIN Geschäftsbericht 2001. Berlin.
ETSI (2002). Annual Report and Activity Report 2001. Sophia-Antipolis.
European Commission (1998a). Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness. Document COM(1998)550 final. Brussels.
European Commission (1998b). The Business Test Panel. A Pilot Project. Communication from the Commission tothe European Parliament and the Council. Brussels.
European Commission (1998c). Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force. Brussels.
European Commission (1999a). Single Market Scoreboard, Nr.5 (November). Brussels.
European Commission (1999b). Fifth Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package. Document COM(1999)537. Brussels.
European Commission (1999c). The Strategy for Europe’s Internal Market. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM(1999)464. Brussels.
European Commission (1999d). Principle of Mutual Recognition: Working Towards more Effective Implementation.
Single Market News Nr. 17 (July). Brussels.
European Commission (2000a). Single Market Scoreboard, Nr. 6 (May). Brussels.
European Commission (2000b). Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets. Document COM(2000)26. Brussels.
European Commission (2000c). Review of SLIM: Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM(2000)104. Brussels.
European Commission (2001). The White Paper on European Governance. Brussels.
European Commission (2002). Distribution and Servicing of Motor Vehicles in the European Union. Brussels.
IEA (2002). Electricity Information. Paris.
IMD (2002). World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002. Lausanne.
IMF (several issues). International Financial Statistics, Washington, D.C.
Konzendorf, Götz (2000). Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung am Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung. TADatenbank-Nachrichten Nr.2 (June).
Marx, F. and U. Jasper (2001). Vergaberecht. Verlag Beck, München.
OECD (2001). Government Procurement: A synthesis Report. Paris.
OECD (2002a). Economic Survey of Germany. Paris.
OECD (2003a). International Trade by Commodity Statistics. Paris.
OECD (2002b). International Direct Investment Statistics. Paris.
OECD (2003b). Statistics on International Trade in Services. Paris.
Porter, M., J. Sachs, P. Cornelius, and K. Schwab (2002). The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
RegTP(2002). Jahresbericht 2002. Bonn.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2002). Statistisches Jahrbuch. Wiesbaden.
T-Online/Stern/McKinsey (2002). Perspektive Deutschland: Projektbericht zur Grössten Online-Umfrage Deutschlands. http/www.perspective-deutschland.de.
UNCTAD (2002). World Investment Report. Geneva.
UN-ECE (2002). WP-29: How It Works, How to Join It. Geneva.
VDA (2002). Auto-Jahresbericht. Frankfurt/Main.
VDEW (2002). VDEW-Jahresbericht 2001: Daten und Fakten. Frankfurt/Main.
Wirtschaftswoche (2002). Im Alleingang; immer mehr Institutionen wollen Investitionen nach Deutschland holen –mit wenig Erfolg. Issue No. 48 (21. November).