Compare methods

	Fiscal Decentralization Analysis	Regulatory Impact Assessment
Field	Public Administration	Public Administration
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	1972	2008
Originator	Wallace E. Oates	OECD (Regulatory Policy programme)
Type	Applied analytical framework for intergovernmental finance	Ex ante policy appraisal framework
Seminal source	Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN: 9780155274525	OECD (2008). Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Aliases	Fiscal Federalism Analysis, Intergovernmental Fiscal Analysis, Decentralization of Public Finance Analysis, Subnational Finance Analysis	Regulatory Impact Analysis, RIA, Impact Assessment of Regulation, Better Regulation Impact Assessment
Related	4	4
Summary	Fiscal decentralization analysis examines how taxing, spending and borrowing powers are divided among levels of government — central, regional and local — and what that division means for efficiency, equity and accountability. Its theoretical foundation is the fiscal federalism tradition pioneered by Wallace Oates, whose 1972 book Fiscal Federalism and 1999 essay set out when decentralized provision improves welfare and how intergovernmental transfers should be designed. The method maps the assignment of revenues and expenditures across tiers, measures the degree of decentralization and the gap between subnational spending and own revenue, and assesses how these arrangements affect service delivery, redistribution and the accountability of governments to citizens.	Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is a systematic, ex ante framework for appraising the likely consequences of a proposed regulation before it is adopted, so that policymakers choose the option that delivers the greatest net benefit to society. Promoted internationally by the OECD as a cornerstone of regulatory quality and 'better regulation,' RIA requires governments to define the problem clearly, identify a full range of options including non-regulatory alternatives, weigh their costs and benefits, consult affected parties, recommend the preferred option, and plan for monitoring. The aim is to replace reflexive rule-making with evidence-based, transparent and proportionate regulation.