And, transparency is essential to solvency --- have to be open and clear about the process

(Law School, CRDP, University of Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France, “Regulatory Impact Assessment,” Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, pg SpringerLink //pa-ef)

Being transparent about all these stages could contribute to a better accountability of regulators (since trade-offs are made clear) and to an increased consistency in regulations (since the need of a new regulation is explained). Moreover, with experience in RIA, better data and analytical methods should be expected to emerge. RIA is, from this point of view, a learning by doing a process. (B) RIA is not only a document (or a set of documents) providing information regarding the expected consequences of a regulation (an end result); it should be conceptualized much more as a process (Adler and Posner 2006). Indeed, as an “end result,” it could be considered as a mere new rhetoric to justify regulatory choices; the hypotheses would then be chosen ex post to justify the desired regulation which will then be submitted to some formal or informal political debate – it is quite often this instrumental use of RIA that is criticized (Renda 2006). Conceptualized as a process, RIA exhibits two interesting features. First, it makes clear that RIA is a way to inquire into a regulatory problem: neither the problem nor its options are facts; they are identified and assessed differently depending on the state of knowledge. RIA, once made, is then not an end result but a “first draft” that will evolve with the comments and criticism of stakeholders. Second, RIA is not a stage after drafting a regulation; it should be developed in parallel of it to reduce the likelihood of an instrumental use. This also requires a complete transparency of the process.