LEGISLATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE OUTPUTS AND LEGISLATIVE OUTCOMES: A LEGAL THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION

Before delving into the procedures or criteria for assessing the impact of specific legislation, a preliminary question must be addressed—a question that significantly shapes both the nature and goals of the entire assessment process: What precisely does one assess? Despite the pivotal nature of this question, a review of the current legal discourse, encompassing both legally binding documents and scholarship on impact assessment, reveals a lack of a clear answer. Given this scenario, the goal of this contribution is to employ legal theoretical analysis to elucidate the impacts that legislative impact assessment aims to evaluate. Consequently, it seeks to determine whether a distinction, and possibly a priority ranking, is necessary, at least from the perspective of legal discourse, among the criteria legislators must use when assessing the potential impacts of legislation before enactment. To achieve this objective, this contribution outlines a four-part approach to enhance legislative impact assessment. Part One stresses the importance of legal theory exploring both the formation and consequences of laws, critiquing the limited focus of risk analysis on economic, social, and cultural effects. Part Two highlights the need to differentiate between legislative outputs and outcomes in the assessment process, considering impacts within the legal system and broader societal effects. Part Three argues that, due to the legalization of legislative processes, legal logic dominates, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating legal impacts to assess legislation’s effects on the community. Lastly, Part Four proposes specific steps for improvement, including separating the assessment of legislative outputs, involving external legal experts, and integrating AI for more efficient and accurate legal analysis.