Attributes of Regulatory Excellence – Metrics that Matter
Regulatory Excellence Attributes
What makes a regulator excellent is answered in several distinct ways, each of which gives rise to distinct types of attributes. What makes a regulator excellent? Applying the attributes of regulatory attributes and having a process of assessing the regulator’s outcomes versus the attributes.
Characteristics of a regulator (as an organization)
When defining excellence in terms of characteristics, adjectives will be used to describe the qualities or capacities of the regulator as an organization: e.g., “knowledgeable,” “well-funded,” “adequately staffed,” “credible,” “honest,” “legitimate,” and so forth.
These characteristics do not describe specific actions or outcomes, although they may well be affected by (or in turn affect) actions and outcomes. Rather, they describe a general “state” of the regulator, a standing set of resources upon which it has to draw or a general posture that it holds in conducting its day-to-day operations and affecting outcomes in the world.
Actions (or best practices) of regulating
Another way to define excellence lies in the type of actions the regulator takes in the course of regulating. Attributes as actions might be articulated in general terms, describing the regulator’s actions in the course of regulating. Perhaps using adjectives such as “vigilant,” “serious,” “reasonable,” “transparent,” and so forth.
Or excellence as action might be articulated in terms of specific types of best practices.
- “An excellent regulator takes enforcement actions against the biggest risks.”
- “An excellent regulator uses flexible regulatory instruments.”
- “An excellent regulator adopts a problem-solving rather than a punitive approach to enforcement.”
Outcomes (or indicia of regulatory performance)
Ultimately the characteristics that define an excellent regulator lead to desired outcomes. The actions that it takes also have to align with the desirable outcomes. These outcomes, then, might be what gets used to define regulatory excellence.
Many outcomes, when used as attributes of regulatory excellence, will describe substantive states of the world. For example:
For example:
- effectiveness (impact in terms of solving the problem or achieve an ultimate outcome of concern)
- cost-effectiveness (achieving a specific level of the desired outcome at a low cost)
- efficiency (balancing the desired outcome – i.e., problem reduction – with other outcomes or concerns, such as costs, so as to achieve an “optimal” level of problem reduction)
- equity (a fair distribution of the costs and benefits of regulatory action)
All of these examples focus on substantive outcomes. But other outcomes that define regulatory excellence need to be thought of in process- oriented terms. For example, the key attributes of an excellent regulator’s stakeholder engagement process might be defined in terms of legitimacy or trust by the public. If a regulatory process leaves members of the public feeling they were listened to and respected, that is a kind of process outcome that might define regulatory excellence.
Indicia of performance
Whether substantive or process-based outcomes – will presumably have some connection with a regulator’s characteristics and actions. Sometimes this connection will be instrumental, in that a regulator possessing certain characteristics, or a regulator that takes certain kinds of actions, will be more likely to achieve excellent outcomes. For example, a regulator that is highly knowledgeable (a characteristic) will be more likely to achieve effective outcomes. Or as another example, a regulator that adopts flexible rules (action) will be more likely to achieve cost-effective or efficient outcomes. And of course, outcomes may well feedback to shape a regulator’s characteristics or actions too.
