One-in, One-out

One-in, One-out
Name	One-in, One-out
Othernames	OIO
Type	Regulatory policy
Introduced	20th century
Areas	Trade, Industry, Public administration

One-in, One-out.

One-in, One-out is a regulatory approach that requires the removal of one statute or regulation for every new law or rule introduced by an administration, agency, or legislature. The policy aims to control bureaucracy and administrative burden by linking new regulatory additions to equivalent deletions, influencing policy across jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and the European Union. Proponents cite examples involving Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury offices in various governments to illustrate implementation.

Definition and Principles

One-in, One-out rests on principles of deregulation, cost–benefit analysis, and net administrative burden reduction, obliging authorities like the Cabinet Office, White House, or European Commission to account for the compliance costs of new measures by offsetting them with deregulations. Core components involve measurement frameworks developed by offices such as the Better Regulation Executive, Office for Budget Responsibility, Regulatory Policy Committee, and Government Accountability Office. Implementation typically uses impact assessment methodologies drawn from agencies including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to quantify direct costs, indirect costs, and transitional impacts.

History and Origins

Roots of One-in, One-out can be traced to mid-20th-century administrative reform debates in United Kingdom and United States contexts, influenced by thinkers such as Alan Greenspan-era deregulatory trends and managerial reforms promoted by cabinets like the Thatcher ministry and Reagan administration. Formal adoption occurred in the 2010s with policies announced by the Cameron ministry, mirrored by initiatives in the Trump administration and policy documents from the European Commission and Australian government. Precedents include earlier sunset provision and regulatory review techniques used by institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and HM Treasury.

Applications and Policies

One-in, One-out has been applied to sectors overseen by Department of Health and Social Care, Department for Transport, Food Standards Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department for Education analogues, shaping rules on food safety, transport safety, financial conduct, and environmental regulation. Governments operationalize the policy through guidance from bodies like the Better Regulation Executive, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act mechanisms, and institutional tools such as regulatory stocks registers and sunset clauses. Parallel frameworks include One-in, Two-out variants used by the Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs, and the European Commission's REFIT programme.

Economic and Regulatory Impacts

Empirical assessments from the Institute for Government, National Audit Office, Civic Innovation Lab, and academic centers at London School of Economics, Harvard Kennedy School, and Stanford University have examined effects on small and medium-sized enterprises, financial markets, consumer protection, and innovation. Supporters argue One-in, One-out lowers compliance costs for firms and reduces administrative burden on traders using case material from City of London Corporation and Chamber of Commerce reports. Critics cite findings from the Competition and Markets Authority, European Court of Auditors, and think tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research that link aggressive net-zero counting to weakened regulatory safeguards and uneven sectoral impacts.

Criticisms and Limitations

Scholars and oversight bodies including the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Congressional Research Service, Parliamentary Budget Office, Public Accounts Committee, and NGOs like Friends of the Earth and Liberty have pointed to limitations: ambiguous accounting rules, displacement of essential protections, and incentives to reclassify regulations rather than repeal them. Other critiques reference legal challenges brought before courts such as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the United States Court of Appeals when administrative agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Food and Drug Administration face statutory conflicts. Additionally, critics invoke international obligations under treaties like the World Trade Organization agreements and Paris Agreement commitments.

Case Studies and Examples

Prominent examples include the United Kingdom policy under the Cameron ministry and subsequent modifications by the May ministry and Johnson ministry, the Trump administration executive orders overseen by the Office of Management and Budget, and prototype schemes in Australia coordinated by the Treasury and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Sectoral case studies span deregulatory actions affecting financial services examined by the Financial Conduct Authority and Bank of England, environmental rule changes scrutinized by the Environment Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, and health-sector adjustments involving the National Health Service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comparative evaluations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Commission offer cross-jurisdictional insight into outcomes and trade-offs.

Category:Regulatory policy