디지털 시대 규제이론으로서 증거기반 규제의 법적 의미와 제도화 한계

초록

The economists who won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics, “Professors Michael Kreimer, Esther Duplow, and Abhishek Banerjee,” believe that human behavior is the reason for the emergence of poverty, which is a challenging problem for humanity, and they prove it mathematically by conducting research and proposing customized policy alternatives to solve it. For example, he presented a hypothesis about the reasons for the lack of quality education in India (“lack of stationery, lack of textbooks, and lack of teachers”), analyzed it through experiments and evidence, and proved that the lack of good teachers was due to the lack of good teachers, and suggested that good education could be provided to children by hiring many teachers on short-term contracts and extending their contracts only if they performed well. This paper focuses on the role of regulatory legal theory in the process of evidence-based policymaking as administrative law. In particular, the rapid digital transformation has made it necessary for the policymaking process to argue for the effectiveness and rationality of regulations. Adequate evidence of policy effectiveness plays an important role in public persuasion and reasoned debate in a transparent legislative process. In particular, many modern regulations deal with technology, the environment, finance, intellectual property, privacy, antitrust, food safety, and other areas where the rationality and effectiveness of regulatory policy is an important premise for legislative debate compared to traditional areas of regulatory administration such as police and safety. Evidence-based regulation means “the derivation of more rational, desirable regulatory approaches based on the best scientific evidence available at the time”. The term evidence-based was first used in the context of “evidence-based medicine” and has since been widely applied to various areas of policy-making, including evidence-based practice, evidence-based policing, and evidence-based education. In the United States, systematic evidence-based research was conducted in health and education policymaking in the 1960s, leading to the formation of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission in 2016 and the enactment of the Evidence-Based Policy Framework Act in 2020. However, evidence-based regulation faces the problem of inconsistent interpretation of evidence, meaning that different interpretations emerge depending on which variables or values are weighted more heavily, and even if a certain effect is expected scientifically, the combination of collective human behavior and judgment can lead to a gap between evidence and policy effectiveness. Empirically, there are limitations in evidence collection, causal analysis, generalization, and enforcement, and in terms of systematization, there are limitations in prioritizing evidence and systematically evaluating evidence. In Korea, the Basic Act on Administrative Regulation was introduced to establish the regulatory impact assessment system in government legislation, and the Public Data Act and the Data-Based Administration Act were enacted to promote an evidence-based administrative law system. In addition, the 2020 COVID-19 response discussed the importance of scientific evidence in the preparation of quarantine policies, the promotion of vaccination, and the proper allocation of medical resources. The regulatory sandbox consultation process also discusses that appropriate evidence should be provided for prioritization of approvals, etc. To ensure that evidence-based policies are reflected in legislation as health, environmental, and financial laws proliferate, it is necessary to safely collect and use reliable data, prepare appropriate policy arguments, and establish regulatory policies through systematic research.

키워드