Regulatory Impact Assessment Role in Developing Participatory Work between Civil Society Organizations and Jordanian Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs

The study points out the role of regulatory assessment in developing participatory work in Jordan focusing on both civil society organizations and Ministry of Political & Parliamentary Affairs. Jordan, nowadays ,has a rapidly evolving policy and regulatory environment. The problem that is rooted in our societies and national institutions manifests in the absence or lack of coordination in order to achieve the desired results that are planned to reach, namely the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutional performance of all sectors, especially the development sectors. The study poses the questions dealing with empowering a decentralized RIA System in Jordan, mainly: Determining the policies to be achieved to solve the problem, identifying the problems to be treated, determining the appropriate option for policy enforcement, determining the type of legislation required, determining who is responsible for preparing these legislations, and identifying the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms required. The research used the descriptive analytical, methodology. The study proposes an institutional mechanism of the (RIA) in Jordan.


Introduction
Jordan has a rapidly evolving policy and regulatory environment.More than 1,000 legal acts (laws, parliament resolutions, and government resolutions) are adopted every year.Public participation is a central requirement for good governance, not just in light of the fact that it offers voice to the general population for issues that influence them and choices that are made in their name, additionally on the grounds that it adds to amplifying the quality and viability of policy-making.Engagement of nationals in approach making brings open trust up in establishments and their choices by giving general society a feeling of proprietorship.The expectation to connect with nationals in basic leadership should be true in light of the fact that the entire procedure is futile unless proposals and suggestions are to be considered and people in general persuaded that they can make an impact.On the opposite, it might even have unfriendly impacts by bringing down open trust in organizations.(Skopje, 2015).
Many civil society organizations (CSOs) in Jordan have made a positive impact by working side-by-side with the government institutions in improving public engagement in policy-making, as well as criticizing them, about why and how institutions need to conduct their consultations with CSOs and citizens.Participatory policies are the most profound basis for the creation of an enabling environment for CSOs (Carothers & Ottaway, 2010).
The legislative premise that controls the work of government organizations and additionally key reports received by the administration demonstrate a dedication and thought for engagement of civil society in policy-making.
The Government of Jordan, led by the ministry of political and parliamentary affairs is setting up by 2017 a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) policy and management system (RIA System) for newly proposed legal

Problem Statement and Questions of the Study
The existence of a participatory relationship between the State and civil society organizations is a necessity dictated by the real interdependence of geography and politics, both of which operate within a single geographical area and political considerations that make both seek a better society, the society of justice, equality and the rule of law.They are rich in each other because of the interests, and goals they share, which are common denominators that lead to dialogue and participation rather than conflict.It is in the interest of the Jordanian state and civil society to establish strong and institutionalized participatory relationships.The need to meet the state and civil society in one way to establish a more participative, complementary and mutually trusting relationship is particularly urgent.
Policy promoting cooperation between the state (public authorities: government and parliament) and civil society organizations (CSOs) are important not only because they support collaboration on jointly identified themes, but can also be tool of confidence and trust building.Therefore this study is trying to answer the study question: what is the role of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) with its seven steps in developing participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan?

Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is shown in its response to the limits of the relationship between the joint work of the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan and civil society organizations through the regulatory impact assessment processes.

Objectives of the Study
Legislative reforms are essential to the creation of a social and political consensus that seeks to make progress in the area of comprehensive reform in various areas.It begins with the process of building and shaping policy, and establishing the joint efforts between the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan and civil society organizations through the regulatory impact assessment processes for: -Determining the policies to be achieved to solve the problem -Identifying the problem for treatment -Determining the appropriate option for policy enforcement -Determining the type of legislation required (new law, regulation, instructions, legislative amendment) -Determining who is responsible for preparing these legislations

Study Methodology
The research used the descriptive, analytical, and practical methodology.
On the descriptive side, the methodology was to describe the Jordanian political system, legislation, the Jordanian legislative system and parliament, the mechanism for formulating public policies, as well as the study of Jordanian civil society organizations, and the evaluation of parliamentary policies.For this purpose, a structured methodology has been adopted based on the logical construction of concepts, perhaps the most important of which is the concept of regulatory impact assessment (RIA).

Independent variable
Dependent variable

Participatory Work
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Defining the problem Setting goals Selecting options Measuring effects Application and compliance Monitoring and evaluation Consultation

Major Hypothesis
H0: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.

Sub-hypotheses
H01: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of defining the problem on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H02: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of setting goals on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H03: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of selecting options on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H04: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of measuring effects on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H05: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of application and compliance on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H06: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of monitoring and evaluation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
H07: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of consultation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.

Literature Review
The political system in Jordan is based on the Constitution of 1952 on three pillars: the executive authority, represented by the king as head of state, the cabinet, and the legislative authority, represented by the National Assembly consisting of the Houses of Deputies and the Judiciary and represented by courts of various types and specialties.The executive authority in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has two main pillars: The king, the head of state, the prime minister and his ministerial team.

Legislative System in the Jordanian Parliament
The draft laws shall be forwarded by the Government to the Council of Representatives by an official letter from the Prime Minister, accompanied by the reasons for it, as approved by the Council of Ministers, requesting the referral of it to the House of Representatives for approval.After the law is submitted to the Chamber of Deputies.The project may be referred to the competent committee, which in turn studies the law in detail, and may summon the competent minister or his deputy, senior officials or those who believe it is necessary to hear the opinion of the concerned parties and experts (Aladwan & Aldab, 2015).

Civil Society Organizations in Jordan
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are a group of free voluntary organizations that fill the public sphere between the family and the state.They are established to achieve the interests of their members or to provide services to citizens or to carry out a variety of humanitarian activities and to abide by values and standards of respect, compromise, tolerance, participation and peaceful management of diversity and difference.
King Abdullah II era has witnessed the process of political and economic openness and globalization, Jordan's entry into several international economic agreements and the strengthening of relations with international institutions, which contributed to the creation of an internal and external environment supportive of civil society, and the need to involve civil society in the management of state affairs, and there were clear provisions in those conventions referring to this (Yom, 2005).

Intersections of Jordanian Legislation with Civil Society Organizations
The follower of the civil society relations in Jordan, believes that it has undergone many fluctuations and forms, and the relationship is affected by the current political situation and the changes and transformations dictated by external and internal factors.In 1989, Jordan witnessed a historic shift in the abolition of martial law, the restoration of parliamentary life and the entry into a stage of political openness, which contributed to the reconsideration of the presence of civil society.The opposition of political parties have regained their legitimacy and have been re-registered following the enactment of a law regulating their work (Misztal, 2013).

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is the process of identifying and evaluating the expected effects of regulatory proposals, using a consistent analytical approach, such as benefit / cost analysis, which is based on defining basic organizational objectives and identifying all policy interventions that can be achieved in advance of feasible alternatives.Possible options should also be assessed, using the same method, to inform decision-makers about the effectiveness and efficiency of different options, thus selecting the most effective and efficient options (Adelle, Macrae, Marusic & Naru, 2015).

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and (CSOs)
Regulations are main instruments for policy making in any nation, influencing a wide range of different groups in the society in an unexpected way.Conducting RIA will help to ensure that all the parties have a good understanding of who will be affected by the proposed model of social participation.This will allow identifying winners and losers, and defining a communication strategy that will ensure collaboration and eventually success in implementation of the proposed policy model.RIA is considered an appropriate regulation tool used to make the proposed public policy model more effective and its implementation more efficient, by enhancing the public value of the decision to introduce social participation in any country (Kasamets, 2001).

Questionnaire
The study relied mainly on the questionnaire designed and prepared by the researcher.
After examining the literature and theoretical studies relevant to the subject of this study; whether in periodicals, books or other references, the questionnaire was formed in three parts and as follows:

Validity and Reliability Test
Questionnaire was subjected to the validity and the reliability test, in order to emphasise the capacity of the paragraphs and then to measure what it was developed for, The questionnaire also have been subjected to the reliability test aiming to ensure the same results if it was re-applied to respondents again.

Questionnaire Validity
Ensuring the validity of the measurement tool was the aim; the questionnaire was reviewed by a number of faculty members of the Jordanian universities in the same field of the research, for identifying the suitability of the questionnaire for the goals to be achieved, and by retrieving all suggestions, all the necessary adjustments on the paragraphs of the questionnaires were made, by deleting, adding some paragraphs, and by rephrasing others.

Questionnaire Reliability
For ensuring the reliability of the questionnaire, the researcher used the internal consistency coefficient (α) according to the alpha Cronbach equation, and the value of (α) 97%, which is very high when compared with the minimum acceptable of 60%.The reliability of the study tool was tested by applying a sample of twenty employees, then reapplying after (15) days on the same sample, by which the Pearson correlation coefficient were extracted showing a result of (0.921); indicating a high degree of reliability.
These employees were excluded from the distribution of the questionnaires later.

Study Analysis and Results
This section aims at displaying and analysing the arithmetic means and the standard deviations of the respondents' answers concerning the questionnaire paragraphs, then testing the respondents' point of view regarding the questionnaire ,consisting of (40) paragraphs.In order to compare the arithmetic means of the responses according to the scale of the questionnaire, adopting the five-point Likert scale.

Defining the Problem
Defining the problem variable is measured in paragraphs (1-5), as illustrated in table (1), and the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample measure the problem variable ranging between (3.69 -2.52), and the standard deviations ranging between (0.703-0.813).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the defining of the problem variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default means.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "Defining of the problem means identification of target groups and distribution of impacts" had the highest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (3.69) and its standard deviation was (0.803), while the paragraph, which states "We should clarify why the problem is not resolved by the existing legislative frameworks" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (2.52) and its standard deviation was (0.762).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.18) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.768), which indicates the approval of the respondents on the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The setting goals variable is measured in paragraphs (6-10), as illustrated in table (2), and the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the setting goals variable ranged between (3.88 -2.78), and the standard deviations ranged between (0.811-0.735).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the setting goals variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
Also noted that the paragraph, which states "The clear presentation of objectives allows better oversight of the implementation and evaluation of these objectives" as its arithmetic mean was (3.88) and its standard deviation was (0.735), while the paragraph, which states "The number of goals should be limited, and the prioritization should be clearly defined" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (2.78) and its standard deviation was (0.802).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.36) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.783), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The selecting options variable is measured in paragraphs (11-15), as illustrated in table (3), and the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the selecting options variable ranged between (3.87 -2.88), and the standard deviations ranged between (0.811-0.778).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the selecting options variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "Defining policy options to achieve objectives must ensure that these options are relevant, practical, and preferred" as its arithmetic means was (3.87), and its standard deviation was (0.809), while the paragraph, which states "Regulatory and non-regulatory options should be considered" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (2.88), and its standard deviation was (0.781).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.25) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.794), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The measuring effects variable is measured in paragraphs (16-20), as illustrated in table (4), and that the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the measuring effects variable ranged between (3.96-2.87),and the standard deviations ranged between (0.844-0.762).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the measuring effects variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "We should determine the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of each option" as its arithmetic means was (3.96) and its standard deviation was (0.762), while the paragraph, which states "Consider the risks of implementation and obstacles to optimal application" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (2.87) and its standard deviation was (0.844).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic mean for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.50) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.801), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The application and compliance variable is measured in paragraphs (21-25), as illustrated in table (5), and the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the application and compliance variable ranged between (3.96-2.87),and the standard deviations ranged between (0.844-0.762).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the application and compliance variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default means.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "This step includes the determination of the positive or negative effects for each option" as its arithmetic means was (3.96) and its standard deviation was (0.788), while the paragraph, which states "Option selection versus government strategies and priorities" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (2.43) and its standard deviation was (0.867).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.09) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.806), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The monitoring and evaluation variable is measured in paragraphs (26-30), as illustrated in table ( 6), and that the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the monitoring and evaluation variable ranged between (3.87-3.01),and the standard deviations ranged between (0.843-0.768).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the monitoring and evaluation variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "There must be a way to determine whether the regulatory changes have been completed efficiently" as its arithmetic means was (3.87), and its standard deviation was (0.771), while the paragraph, which states "Plans should also be made on how and when legislation will be reviewed" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic means was (3.01) and its standard deviation was (0.843).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.50) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.794), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.The consultation variable is measured in paragraphs (31-35), as illustrated in table (7), and the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the consultation variable ranged between (3.88-3.13),and the standard deviations ranged between (0.821-0.743).
All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the consultation variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
It is also noted that the paragraph, which states "Trying to achieve consensus in public consultations, and the consultation process should not be used as a negotiating mechanism with stakeholders" as its arithmetic means was (3.88) ,and its standard deviation was (0.743), while the paragraph, which states "We should consult all relevant target groups" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic mean was (3.13) and its standard deviation was (0.821).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.49) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.791), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.All of these arithmetic means show the approval of the study sample on the paragraphs that measure the participatory work variable, since all the arithmetic means are greater than the default mean.
Also noted that the paragraph, which states "Consultation as a step of the regulatory impact assessment leads to the participatory work of the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs with civil society organization" as its arithmetic mean was (3.77) and its standard deviation was (0.761), while the paragraph, which states "Defining the problem as a step of the regulatory impact assessment leads to the participatory work of the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs with civil society organization" had the lowest approval grades; as its arithmetic mean was (2.31) and its standard deviation was (0.835).
Overall, the general average of the arithmetic means for the answers of the respondents is equivalent to (3.18) and the standard deviation is equivalent to (0.799), which indicates the approval of the respondents upon the scale of these paragraphs was medium, and that their attitudes were positive.

Testing the Study Hypotheses
In order to test the hypotheses of the study, statistical methods were used with the appropriate tests to the nature of the variables and assumptions, using the simple linear regression and the multiple linear regression analysis so as to put the base of acceptances or rejections.

Testing the Major Hypothesis
H0: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
It is noted from simple regression analysis results described in table (9) that there is an effect of the role of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.This statistically significant effect at the statistically significant level (α = 0.05), as the calculated (T) value is (25.12), which is higher than tabulated (T) value, is in line with the simple regression analysis results that explain the (69.8%) variance.
According to that the null hypothesis (H0) will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.

Testing the Fourth Sub-hypothesis
H04: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of measuring effects on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
It is noted from simple regression analysis results described in table (13) that there is an impact of measuring effects on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
This statistically significant effect at the statistically significant level (α 0.05), as the calculated (T) value is (13.00), which is higher than tabulated (T) value, is in line with the simple regression analysis results that explain the (33.41%) variance.
According to that the null hypothesis (H04) will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.This statistically significant effect at the statistically significant level (α = 0.05), as the calculated (T) value is (12.32), which is higher than tabulated (T) value, is in line with the simple regression analysis results that explain the (36.37%) variance.
According to that the null hypothesis (H05) will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.

Testing the Sixth Sub-hypothesis
H06: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of monitoring and evaluation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
It is noted from simple regression analysis results described in table (15) that there is an impact of monitoring and evaluation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
This statistically significant effect at the statistically significant level (α = 0.05), as the calculated (T) value is (11.55), which is higher than tabulated (T) value, is in line with the simple regression analysis results that explain the (31.46%) variance.
According to that the null hypothesis (H06) will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.

Testing the Seventh Sub-hypothesis
H07: There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of consultation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
It is noted from simple regression analysis results described in table ( 16) that there is an impact of consultation on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.
This statistically significant effect at the statistically significant level (α = 0.05), as the calculated (T) value is (12.85), which is higher than tabulated (T) value, is in line with the simple regression analysis results that explain the (39.12%) variance.
According to that the null hypothesis (H07) will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis will be accepted.

Recommendations
Based on the results of the study, and by testing its hypotheses, the researcher recommends the following: 1) Emphasizing on-going consultations between the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs and the civil society organizations to ensure the consolidation of participatory work.
2) Emphasizing the implementation of the steps of the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in partnership between the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs and the civil society organizations.
3) Identifying the preferred option for participatory work between the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs and the civil society organizations to improve policy-making.
4) Conducting further researches on the impact of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) outcomes on the participatory work between the Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs and the civil society organizations.

Part I :
It includes information relating to the respondents and their organisations.Part II: It includes (35) paragraph related to the measurement of role of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) with its seven steps in developing.These seven steps have been identified as the developing techniques supporting participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan; as follows: It includes (7) (36-42) paragraphs measuring the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.

Table 2 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the setting goals variable

Table 3 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the selecting options variable

Table 4 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the measuring effects variable

Table 5 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the application and compliance variable

Table 6 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the monitoring and evaluation variable

Table 7 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the consultation variableThe participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan variable is measured in paragraphs (36-42), as illustrated in table (8), and that the arithmetical means for answers of the study sample that measure the participatory work variable ranged between (3.77-2.31),and the standard deviations ranged between (0.835-0.756).

Table 8 .
Arithmetic means and standard deviations for the members of the study sample answers towards the participatory work variable

Table 13 .
Testing results of the fourth sub-hypothesis There will be no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α = 0.05) of the role of application and compliance on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.It is noted from simple regression analysis results described in table (14) that there is an impact of application and compliance on the participatory work between Civil Society Organizations and Ministry of Political and Parliamentary Affairs in Jordan.

Table 14 .
Testing results of the fifth sub-hypothesis

Table 15 .
Testing results of the sixth sub-hypothesis

Table 16 .
Testing results of the seventh sub-hypothesis