Politicians, administration and scholars and scientists agree on the whole on the requirements for a “good” piece of legislation and its implementation. In general, the following points are demanded:

• A piece of legislation should show the intended effect.
• A piece of legislation should encourage acceptance by those at whom it is aimed in the normal case, since this makes it more likely that the piece of legislation will be complied with and enforced.
• The costs of implementing a piece of legislation should be within the planned range.
  

In practice, legislation does not always satisfy these requirements. It is rather the case that legislation frequently has unintended impacts. This can have a negative effect in the long term, thus frequently requiring costly revision of the legislation or its implementation. If for this reason the effectiveness of the law is to be improved, its acceptance is to be increased and the costs of implementing it are to be kept down, then one of the main tools for action of a State – legislation – must be adapted to the requirements of a modern state.

One possibility for this is provided by impact assessment (IA). This is a process for determining the impact of pieces of legislation and subjecting them to comparative assessment. When it is carried out systematically, IA is a means for

• improving the quality of legislation
• reducing the density of legislation and
• careful use of resources.

The aim of an IA is

• to determine and assess in advance the probable impact and side effects of a prospective piece of legislation (prospective IA) or
• to check whether existing pieces of legislation are doing what they are supposed to (retrospective IA).
  

The aim of applying IA is thus in principle to have less legislation but to make it better, more understandable and shorter. This will make it easier to comply with and enforce. Impact assessment is for this reason part of the “Modern State – Modern Administration” program of the present German government and thus an important contribution to the modernization of state and administration.

A good IA must also include the impact of a piece of legislation on gender equality and may not ignore gender aspects. Otherwise, the impact assessment would be imprecise and be based on stereotypes and mere assumptions instead of realistic, fact-based prognoses.
You can find more information on gender impact assessment (GIA) here.

Please click here if you are interested in the different kinds of IA – prospective, accompanying and retrospective IA.

We have gathered some information on IA in individual federal states here.

IA as a method for improving the quality of legislation is not only gaining ground in Germany, but also internationally. Countries such as The Netherlands, Great Britain and Switzerland are using the method of IA to optimise their legislation.
You can find a summary in English of the guidelines for “Gender Impact Assessment” in the Netherlands here.
The Women & Equality Unit in Great Britain has drawn up guidelines entitled “Gender Impact Assessment” which can also be applied to legislation.

At the supra-national level of the EU as well, impact assessment is advancing as the standard method for improving the quality of European legislation.

Up to now, IA has been used as a method mostly in the area of the executive, i.e. administration. But it is also of interest in the work of those with the power to actually make the legislation.

If you want to find out more about the role of Parliament in connection with IA, then please look here.

• Böhret, Carl: Experimentelle Rechtsetzung: Rechtsoptimierung durch Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung, in: Karl Peter Sommermann u.a. (Hg.): Perspektiven der Verwaltungsforschung, 2002, S. 85ff.
• Böhret, Carl/ Konzendorf, Götz: Handbuch Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung (GFA), Baden-Baden, 2001.
• Böhret, Carl / Konzendorf, Götz: Leitfaden zur Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung. Moderner Staat – Moderne Verwaltung, 2000. Erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums des Inneren und des Innenministeriums Baden-Württemberg.
• Bundesministerium des Inneren (Hg.): Moderner Staat – Moderne Verwaltung. Abschlussbericht über den Praxistest zur Erprobung des Handbuches und des Leitfadens zur Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung an ausgewählten Vorhaben der Ressorts, Berlin 2002.
• Bundesministerium des Inneren (Hg.): Moderner Staat – Moderne Verwaltung. Der Mandelkernbericht – Auf dem Weg zu besseren Gesetzen, Abschlussbericht, Berlin 2002.
• Bussmann, Werner: Die Methodik der prospektiven Gesetzesevaluation, in: Gesetzgebung heute (LesGes), 3, 1997, S. 109ff.
• Fliedener, Ortlieb: Gute Gesetzgebung. Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es, bessere Gesetze zu machen. FES-Analyse Verwaltungspolitik, 2001.
• Hill, Hermann/ Hof, Hagen (Hg.): Wirkungsforschung zum Recht II. vorausschauend Verwaltung als Adressat und Akteur, Baden-Baden 2000.
• Hill, Hermann/ Hof, Hagen (Hg.): Wirkungsforschung zum Recht I. Wirkungen und Erfolgsbedingungen von Gesetzen, Baden-Baden 1999.
• Konzendorf, Götz: Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung, in: Universitas – Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft, 54. Jhg., Oktober 1999, S. 952ff.
• Neuser, Klaus: Mehr Rationalität durch Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung?, in: Niedersächsische Verwaltungsblätter, 5. Jhg., 11/1998, S. 249-255.
• Schuppert, Gunnar-Folke: Gute Gesetzgebung - Bausteine einer kritischen Gesetzgebungslehre. Rechts- und gesetzgebungswissenschaftliches Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Justiz, Europäische Kommission/Arbeitsdokument der GD Unternehmen, 2002.