ABSTRACT The impact of legal policy reforms to draft legislation has been a relatively unexplored field in the sociology of law studies. In Estonia, as in other European Union and OECD countries, the interdisciplinary information on social, economic, environmental, security, administrative and budgetary impacts of proposed legislation has to be given in an explanatory memorandum of the draft Act to facilitate the knowledge-based and transparent resolutions of policy controversies. In 1997, the author designed a method for normative content analysis of explanatory memoranda on the basis of Estonian legal rules for the draft legislation (1996), OECD regulatory reform recommendations (1997) and multiple academic sources to explain the gap between constitutional norms and social facts in draft legislation. The methodological framework was designed for the parliamentary context involving democratic discourse, the rule of law, human rights, better regulation and other concepts. The initial aim was to gain an empirical overview of the extent that the initiators of draft Acts follow the law-making rules in information categories of impact assessments, research references, and civic engagement. In 1998–2009 seven follow-up studies and several qualitative case studies were carried out, which indicated the mimetic application of better regulation principles. In 2011, the Estonian Government and Parliament took a step closer to the leading OECD countries launching The Development Plan for Legal Policy until 2018. The latest follow-up study proceeds from a hypothesis that this policy reform has had a positive impact on the work routines of ministries. In addition to the normative content analysis of explanatory memoranda of draft Acts (2012–2015), the results of civil servants’ eSurvey (2011; 2015) and some insider’ observations from different ministries will be presented. The studies show many positive structural changes from 2007–2017; however, the gap between normatively required and factually presented socio-legal information is still remarkable. The institutionalisation of better regulation concepts into the relatively small Estonian governance system has been successful and the post-Soviet transition period should be considered as finished since 2010. This article supports this conclusion, partially demonstrating that many preconditions for the deliberative knowledge-based legal policy are not completed – the institution-building must go on.

中文翻译：

---

爱沙尼亚立法草案中更好的监管原则的制度化：立法规则、程序民主和规范与事实之间的政治责任

摘要法律政策改革对立法草案的影响一直是法律研究社会学中一个相对未开发的领域。在爱沙尼亚，与其他欧盟和经合组织国家一样，必须在法案草案的解释性备忘录中提供关于拟议立法的社会、经济、环境、安全、行政和预算影响的跨学科信息，以促进基于知识的和政策争议的透明解决方案。1997年，作者根据爱沙尼亚立法草案的法律规则（1996）、经合组织监管改革建议（1997）和多种学术来源，设计了解释性备忘录的规范内容分析方法，以解释宪法规范与社会规范之间的差距。立法草案中的事实。该方法框架是为涉及民主话语、法治、人权、更好的监管和其他概念的议会背景而设计的。最初的目的是对法案草案的发起者在影响评估、研究参考和公民参与等信息类别中遵循立法规则的程度进行实证概述。1998-2009 年进行了七项后续研究和几个定性案例研究，表明更好的监管原则的模拟应用。2011 年，爱沙尼亚政府和议会更接近于主要的经合组织国家推出了 2018 年之前的法律政策发展计划。 最新的后续研究基于一项假设，即这项政策改革对工作程序产生了积极影响部委。除了对法案草案（2012-2015）的解释性备忘录的规范内容分析外，还将介绍公务员电子调查（2011；2015）的结果以及来自不同部委的一些内部人士的观察。研究表明，2007-2017 年出现了许多积极的结构变化；然而，规范要求的和实际提供的社会法律信息之间的差距仍然很大。将更好的监管概念制度化到相对较小的爱沙尼亚治理体系中是成功的，后苏联过渡时期应被视为自 2010 年以来已经结束。本文支持这一结论，部分证明了协商性知识型法律政策的许多先决条件尚未完成——机构建设必须继续。