18
A World Bank Study
Table 3.1 Features of the Ideal Model and Penalty Points for Restrictions (continued) Core item Feature 11.
Transparency
Ideal model
In-between values
Maximum points: 7 • JC in place • JC decisions made public • clear infringement procedure in place • right of appeal mentioned • exchange of information an obligation • registration of the agreement with the UN Secretary General prescribed • accessibility of pieces of national legislation required • dispute settlement arrangement in place • procedures of amendment in place
• no JC in place: (–) 2 • JC decisions not made public: (–) 3 • infringement procedure not in place: (–) 2 • right of appeal not mentioned: (–) 2 • exchange of information not an obligation: (–) 2 • registration of the agreement with the UN Secretary General not prescribed: (–) 1 • accessibility of pieces of national legislation not required: (–) 1 • dispute settlement arrangement not in place: (–) 1 • procedures of amendment not in place: (–) 1
Source: World Bank data.
subsequently to the conclusion of the agreement concerned, and so forth. In such cases, scoring took into account the “general atmosphere” and legal context of the agreement in question. Whenever faced with an absolutely uncertain choice between “more or less open solutions,” a cautious approach was implemented, meaning that the less-open option was considered for scoring purposes. At a later stage, it may be feasible to develop an “ideal” model agreement that can be recommended for use by different countries. The skeleton of such an ideal model has practically been defined in table 3.1. If so decided by transport policy makers, it would be possible to apply various elements of the ideal model in a phased-out or subtractive manner. This would help avoid disruptive effects on the road freight market of pairs of countries or a region. A subtractive approach was adopted for the analysis. An “additive approach” rather than the subtractive one could just as easily be employed for this part of the analysis. However, despite a feeling of “positiveness” from the additive approach, it would not change the ranking order of the agreements. Furthermore, the requirements of the upper-end ideal model are considered to be better known and a more solid starting point for a subtractive analysis than the bottomup additive approach starting from zero. This method has been used, for example, in QUASAR by the WTO and in the global competitiveness index by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Admittedly, it is not difficult to apply other forms of notation of scores in order to follow the practice in other studies. For example, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Australian Productivity Commission denote the most open regulatory regimes (less restrictive) as closest to zero, while the most restrictive are closest to 100.