Europe's Regulatory Paradox: Speed vs. Transparency

Europe's Regulatory Dilemma: Reform Goals and Criticisms

The European Union, while aiming to be a global standard-setter in the age of digital transformation and artificial intelligence, is striving to modernize its regulatory frameworks. The 'Better Regulation' reform package on the European Commission's agenda lies at the heart of this effort. However, this initiative, which aims to simplify and accelerate regulations, particularly in rapidly evolving fields like technology and artificial intelligence, is creating an unexpected paradox: In the name of speed and efficiency, there is a risk of eroding fundamental principles such as transparency and democratic participation.

The logic behind the reform is to enhance the EU's global competitiveness by reducing bureaucratic hurdles. The Commission argues that the current processes, perceived as slow and cumbersome, especially in areas like artificial intelligence (AI) and the data economy, are leaving the EU behind in the innovation race. However, a broad coalition of 286 civil society organizations, academic circles, and industry stakeholders has issued a stark warning against this reform draft. The warning letter emphasizes that the proposed changes could usher in an era of 'regulatory closed doors' by weakening transparency mechanisms such as regulatory impact assessments and public consultations.

Majone's 'Regulatory State' Model and the EU's Dilemma

This debate points to a model long studied in academia. The referenced 'Regulatory European State' model by Majone reveals that the EU has traditionally adopted a governance approach based on technical expertise and independent regulatory bodies. While this model has been effective in addressing market failures, it has faced persistent criticism regarding democratic legitimacy and accountability. Now, the 'Better Regulation' reform carries the potential to further upset this delicate balance. Faster decision-making processes could mean an increase in expert committees and negotiations behind closed doors, potentially sidelining broader democratic scrutiny and public input. This raises fundamental questions about how the EU can maintain its democratic values while attempting to keep pace with the breakneck speed of technological advancement.