On Evidence-Based Policymaking
We take it for granted that a solid evidence base is a key requirement for government interventions. The Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform’s (BERR) five principles of good regulation state that any regulation should be “transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted”.
Yet the European Commission – in its proposed Term Extension Directive – is calling for an extension of the European copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years, which all the independent evidence suggests would be bad news for emerging talent and for consumers.
The theoretical trade-offs are well-known: an extended term of protection, it is argued, provides incentives for musicians to create new recordings, but it also prevents artists from innovating on the back of published music and diminishes the choice of music available on the market. Which effect dominates, and the case for term extension – should rest on a careful consideration of the empirical analysis.
Happily, an international group of 50 leading academics has done just that in the Bournemouth University statement submitted last month to the European Commission. The academics have carefully reviewed the available independent evidence and have shown overwhelmingly that the proposed term extension would be bad for Europe’s creativity (though good for a relatively small number of long-living performers and their estates).
The academics wrote to The Times earlier this week to call on policymakers to examine the case in light of the evidence. Three cheers for the academics!