手法を比較

	Government Trust Survey	Regulatory Impact Assessment
分野	Public Administration	Public Administration
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2017	2008
提唱者	OECD (Trust in Government programme)	OECD (Regulatory Policy programme)
種類	Population survey instrument for institutional trust	Ex ante policy appraisal framework
原典	OECD (2017). Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing. Trust in Government.	OECD (2008). Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
別名	Trust in Government Survey, Public Trust Measurement, Institutional Trust Survey, Confidence in Public Institutions Survey	Regulatory Impact Analysis, RIA, Impact Assessment of Regulation, Better Regulation Impact Assessment
関連	4	4
概要	A government trust survey is a population-based survey instrument for measuring how much citizens trust their public institutions and identifying the drivers of that trust. Building on the OECD's Trust in Government work, modern instruments treat trust not as a single mood but as a set of measurable expectations: that government is competent and reliable in delivering services, and that it acts on values such as integrity, openness, fairness and responsiveness. By surveying a representative sample of the population, weighting responses to the population, and analyzing trust alongside its drivers, the method produces comparable indicators that diagnose where and why public trust is high or low and what policy levers might raise it.	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.