In 2002, the European Union required that an impact assessment be done for all major initiatives, including many regulations, directives, decisions, and communications. This paper is the first paper to statistically analyze these impact assessments using the largest available dataset. As a benchmark, we compare our results in the EU with recent results on the quality of regulatory analysis in the U.S. We score impact assessments using a number of objective measures of quality, such as whether a particular assessment provides any quantitative information on costs or benefits, and use the scores to develop two indices of quality.
Our analysis suggests that European impact assessments typically exclude important economic information and their quality may have gotten worse from 2003 to mid-2005. We recommend that more economically significant EU initiatives receive higher levels of scrutiny, as is currently done for proposed regulations in the U.S.
[Trump] didn't say one word about Ukraine and he had to be briefed on this stuff. The only person to say that the United States says the annexation of Crimea wasn't legal and disagrees with Russia was the president of Russia. The overall contrast [with Trump's criticisms of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May, and the EU earlier in the trip] coupled with Trump's inability to say Russia had done anything to contribute to the downturn of US-Russia relations, either way it's scary. Either he forgot there's a problem or he wasn't willing. He would have had no problem listing his grievances against Germany, but against Putin, he's not capable of saying anything.