“Hitting the Target, but Missing the Point” in Regulatory Impact Assessments: Does Bureaucratization Lead to Better <scp>RIAs</scp> ?

ABSTRACT The extent to which Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) conform to the “ideal” rational decision‐making model depends on factors such as political appropriation and the capacity of regulatory bodies. However, despite RIAs being embedded in bureaucratic settings, little research examines how the degree of formalization of RIA implementation affects their quality. In many contexts, RIAs are implemented within decision‐making environments characterized by bureaucratization, where discretion is constrained by legalism, formal boundaries, and standardized processes. This study investigates how bureaucratization influences RIA quality and whether regulators socialized in more bureaucratized administrative cultures rely more heavily on standardized procedures than their peers, thereby affecting RIA quality. Drawing on evidence from Brazilian regulatory agencies that operate within a traditionally bureaucratized administrative system, we employ a mixed‐methods design that combines OLS regression analysis with qualitative interviews. Our findings show that lower bureaucratization, operationalized as the use of strategic guidance documents that convey essential concepts and outline decision‐making steps, is associated with higher‐quality RIAs. By contrast, higher bureaucratization, characterized by the adoption of overly standardized templates, diminishes impact assessment quality. In addition, regulatory boards composed primarily of public sector professionals tend to adopt these templates more frequently, further reinforcing lower quality RIAs. Overall, the study contributes to research on the determinants of RIA quality and demonstrates how excessive bureaucratization can displace the intended goals of policy instruments.