Burden reduction, deregulation, simplification? Unpacking the narratives of Better Regulation

The EU’s Better Regulation agenda is a site of contestation. In May 2015, coinciding with the publication of the Juncker Commission’s Better Regulation reforms, a group of more than 50 civil society organisations formed the Better Regulation Watchdog (BRW). This network of public interest groups, which includes consumer, environmental, development, financial, social, and public health organisations and trade unions, was launched out of concern that, ‘…in its one-sided drive to "reduce regulatory burdens" and under increasing pressure from a large number of major business groups, the European Commission might undermine essential regulations and subordinate the public good to corporate interests.’ (Better Regulation Watchdog, 2015). From the perspective of EU officials, the opposition to Better Regulation within the civil society community is frustrating. In its public statements and policy documentation, the Commission explicitly refutes claims that Better Regulation drives deregulation, and points to its role in increasing democratic participation and legitimacy. It presents Better Regulation as a procedural framework used to bring evidence into policy-making, embed strategic foresight into the political agenda and systematically (and coherently) address the complexity of EU public policy. As such, the political debate has reached something of an impasse. The BRW ceased to function after a few years – lacking dedicated financial resources – but civil society actors continue to lament Better Regulation and its perceived role in delaying, obstructing and weakening proposals. This paper argues that the source of contestation on Better Regulation can be found in the narratives inherent within its discourse. These narratives embody particular ideas – for instance, about what Better Regulation is for, what EU regulation should seek to achieve, how particular tools should be utilised – which empower particular regulatory responses and approaches. The paper presents a narrative analysis of the ‘cannon’ of Better Regulation documentation, a collection of almost 100 documents spanning the early 1980s to January 2024. It identifies three early narratives, emanating from the creation of the single market, the control of an expanding EU and the need for well-drafted legislation, and explores how these continue to permeate understandings of Better Regulation. It then highlights the development of community of practice in self- and co-regulatory approaches, rooted in narratives of responsiveness and regulatory flexibility, and the implications of this enterprise for legislation in the field of alcohol advertising. In so doing, it seeks to demonstrate the role of regulatory governance narratives in shaping both policy outputs, and the perceptions of stakeholders.