Living Labs as Regulatory Learning Tools

Our Mission

In this Joint Working Group, we explore how living labs can be used for regulatory learning.

We aim at fostering mutual learning and co-creation among the actors of the multiple helix model to address regulatory challenges and needs and leverage opportunities that derive from a changing innovation landscape.

The activities focus on developing and promoting living labs as a participatory, evidence-based approach that can support co-creation and better regulatory governance of innovation and spur socio-technical and socio-economic transformation in societies.

Key questions we want to answer:

  • Question 1: What is regulatory learning, what are its desired outcomes, and which methods and tools can support it?
  • Question 2: Why is regulatory learning relevant and important for a single living lab and for networks thereof, and what can both, regulators and living labs, learn from  ach other?
  • Question 3: How can regulatory learning be applied to one or more living labs? How is this already being done, and how could/should it be done more systematically in the future?

Group Coordination

The Joint Working Group is open to all the stakeholders, and the coordination of its activities is carried out coordinated by Joint Research Center from the European Commission, and the Computer Vision Centre from ENoLL.
The coordination team leverages ENoLL’s expertise and experience in capacity-building for living labs and JRC’s position at the research-policy interface in the European Commission for joint effort to mainstream living labs as a tool in policy-making.


Key definitions and concepts

In the context of this work, the term regulatory learning refers to all insights relevant to current and future regulatory policy, which regulators and the multiple helix components gain as a result of engaging with a living lab environment where an innovative technology or solution is being tested in compliance with relevant regulations.

  • Regulatory experimentation involves a test or trial of a new product, service, approach or process, designed to generate evidence that can inform the design, revision or administration of a regulatory regime (Gorst et al., 2021). Regulatory experimentation can also take the form of a temporary removal of regulatory barriers (Schittekatte et al., 2021).
  • Regulatory sandboxing is a framework for testing innovation and the rules and regulations underpinning it, in a real-world setting, typically under a temporary regulatory exemption (BMWi, 2019). Regulatory sandboxes tend to share the following characteristics:
    • a genuine innovation (technological solutions, service, and/or business model) is being tested;
    • societal and/or consumer benefit is expected;
    • readiness for testing has been established; iv) the scope and duration of the testing have been defined in advance by the relevant regulatory authority;
    • safeguards are in place to preserve fundamental policy objectives, such as consumer protection (European Commission, 2021), and citizens’ fundamental rights (GDPR etc.).


BMWi (2019). Making space for innovation: The handbook for regulatory sandboxes. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Germany.

European Commission (2021). Better Regulation Toolbox. European Commission.

Gorst, C., Richardson, A., Tulk, N., Armstrong, H., Roberts, I., Mosse, R., Wong, A., & Florescu, A. (2021). Regulators’ Experimentation Toolkit. Centre for Regulatory Innovation.

Schittekatte, T., Meeus, L., Jamasb, T., & Llorca, M. (2021). Regulatory experimentation in energy: Three pioneer countries and lessons for the green transition. Energy Policy, 156.

Expected Outcomes:

Planned Activities of the Group

  • Rapid study to derive initial insights on questions 1&3, including desk research and interviews (following a snowballing approach)
  • Contributions to community events (still to be confirmed)
    • Contribution to DT4Regions webinar series

Webinars on "Living Labs as Regulatory Learning Tools"

(2022/04/17) – “Kick of Meeting on Living Labs as tools for regulatory learning”.   

  • Koen Vertvoort. ENoLL
  • Kaia Kert. Joint Research Center
  • Evdokimos Konstantinidis. TSHESSAL / ENoLL
  • Martina Desole. ENoLL
  • Lorna Shcrefler. European Commission
  • Fernando Vilariño. Computer Vision Center – ENoLL
  • Monika Mchowska and Agnieszka Wlodarczyk. Krakov Technology Park / ENoLL
  • Maria Alonso Barreiro. Joint Research Center
  • Stefano Tarantola. Joint Research Center
KoM Regulatory learning.mp4 from European Network of Living Labs on Vimeo.
(2022/06/17) – “Living Labs as tools for regulatory learning: Basic concepts and examples”.   Watch video 

  • Koen Vertvoort. ENoLL
  • Kaia Kert. Joint Research Center
  • Fernando Vilariño. Computer Vision Center-UAB / ENoLL
  • Manuel Villa-Arrieta. FUSEAM Fundation
  • Michaela Vebrova. Joint Research Center
Living Labs as tools for regulatory learning June 17 2022 from European Network of Living Labs on Vimeo.

Selected Bibliography

[1] J. Batalla-Bejerano and Manuel Villa-Arrieta. Energy transition and regulatory sandboxes. Fundación para la Sostenibilidad Energética y Ambiental (Funseam), 2022.
[2] A. Brons, K. van der Gaast, H. Awuh, J. Jansma, C. Segreto and S. Wertheim-Heck. A tale of two labs: Rethinking urban living labs for advancing citizen engagement in food system transformations. Cities. 123(October 2021), pp: 103552, 2022.
[3] E. Brown and D. Piroska. Governing Fintech and Fintech as Governance: The Regulatory Sandbox, Riskwashing, and Disruptive Social Classification. New Political Economy. 27(1), pp: 19-32, 2022.
[4] EU Growth. European Commission. Public procurement (Youtube Channel), 2022.
[5] F. Ehnert. Review of research into urban experimentation in the fields of sustainability transitions and environmental governance. European Planning Studies. 2022, pp: 1-27, 2022.
[6] S. Ettelt, L. Williams and N. Mays. National policy piloting as steering at a distance: The perspective of local implementers. Governance. 35(2), pp: 385-401, 2022.
[7] C. Evans. Community-Level Vulnerabilities and Political Field Experiments. Revue Canadienne de Bioéthique. 5(1), pp: 54-61, 2022.
[8] D. Fernandez-Llorca. JRC Publications Repository – Artificial Intelligence in Autonomous Vehicles: towards trustworthy systems. Science for Policy Brief. JRC128170, 2022.
[9] N. Frahm, T. Doezema and S. Pfotenhauer. Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission. Science Technology and Human Values. 47(1), pp: 174-216, 2022.
[10] C. Frey, P. Hertweck, L. Richter and O. Warweg. Bauhaus.MobilityLab: A Living Lab for the Development and Evaluation of AI-Assisted Services. Smart Cities. 5(1), pp: 133-145, 2022.
[11] R. Hamon, H. Junklewitz and et al. Artificial Intelligence in Automated Driving: an analysis of safety and cybersecurity challenges. Science for Policy Brief. JRC127189, 2022.
[12] S. Jansma, A. Dijkstra and M. de Jong. Co-creation in support of responsible research and innovation: an analysis of three stakeholder workshops on nanotechnology for health. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 9(1), pp: 28-48, 2022.
[13] P. Kivimaa and K. Rogge. Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland. Research Policy. 51(1), pp: 104412, 2022.
[14] K. Kok, E. de Hoop, F. Sengers, J. Broerse, B. Regeer and A. Loeber. Governing translocal experimentation in multi-sited transition programs: Dynamics and challenges. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 43(October 2021), pp: 393-407, 2022.
[15] T. Madiega and A. Van De Pol. Artificial intelligence act and regulatory sandboxes. PE 733.544., 2022.
[16] H. Nguyen and P. Marques. The promise of living labs to the Quadruple Helix stakeholders: exploring the sources of (dis)satisfaction. European Planning Studies. 30(6), pp: 1124-1143, 2022.
[17] Ofgem. Regulatory Sandbox Repository, 2022.
[18] V. Peter, P. Markianidou and et al. Study on the costs and benefits of innovation- sensitive legislation. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2022.
[19] S. Pfotenhauer, B. Laurent, K. Papageorgiou and a. Stilgoe. The politics of scaling. Social Studies of Science. 52(1), pp: 3-34, 2022.
[20] K. Van Assche, R. Beunen, S. Verweij, J. Evans and M. Gruezmacher. Policy Learning and Adaptation in governance; a Co-evolutionary Perspective. Administration & Society. 54(7), pp: 1226-1254, 2022.
[21] B. Zaki, E. Wayenberg and B. George. A Systematic Review of Policy Learning: Tiptoeing through a Conceptual Minefield. Policy Studies Yearbook. 12(1), 2022.
[22] L. van de Fliert. Webinar on Public Procurement of Artificial Intelligence (Ai): Building Trust for Citizens and Business. Streaming Service of the European Commission, 2022.
[23] D. Ahern. Regulatory Lag, Regulatory Friction and Regulatory Transition as FinTech Disenablers: Calibrating an EU Response to the Regulatory Sandbox Phenomenon. European Business Organization Law Review Springer International Publishing, 2021.
[24] M. Alonso Raposo, A. Mourtzouchou, A. Garus, N. Brinkhoff-Button, K. Kert, B. Ciuffo and European Commission. Joint Research Centre. JRC future mobility solutions living lab (FMS-Lab): Conceptual framework, state of play and way forward. JRC Science for Poliicy Report. JRC127272, 2021.
[25] S. Arora, R. Hayton, E. Toller, D. Lee, S. Prawdzik, K. Joly, T. Goodier, A. Canada, M. Naccarato, N. Dang, A. Wheeler, K. Jamieson, P. Makrodimitris, S. Miller, B. Sirko, H. Atallah, A. Richardson, N. Tulk and H. Armstrong. Regulators’ Experimentation Toolkit. Centre for Regulatory Innovation & Nesta, 2021.
[26] D. Bauknecht, D. Feser, M. Führ and K. Bizer. How to design and evaluate a Regulatory Experiment? A guide for Public Administrations. Project “Regulatory experiments for the reflexive and adaptive governance of innovation”. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research. Grant no. 16ITA213, 2021.
[27] L. Bennear and J. Wiener. Institutional Roles and Goals for Retrospective Regulatory Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 12(3), pp: 466-493, 2021.
[28] E. Eneqvist and A. Karvonen. Experimental governance and urban planning futures: Five strategic functions for municipalities in local innovation. Urban Planning. 6(1), pp: 183-194, 2021.
[29] European Commission. ‘Better regulation’ toolbox – November 2021 edition. European Commission, 2021.
[30] European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts. 2021/0106 (cod), 2021.
[31] G20 and OECD. G20 Survey on Agile Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Innovation: Report for the G20 Digital Economy Task Force. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021.
[32] L. Gjørtler Elkjær, M. Horst and S. Nyborg. Identities, innovation, and governance: A systematic review of co-creation in wind energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science. 71(May 2020), pp: 101834, 2021.
[33] K. Greve, R. Vita, S. Leminen and M. Westerlund. Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management. Sustainability. 13(2), pp: 791, 2021.
[34] Joint Research Center. Public Sector Modernisation for EU Recovery and Resilience Context: Emerging Stronger and more Resilient. European Commission, 2021.
[35] W. Kwok. Sandboxing and experimenting digital technologies for sustainable development. Future of the World. Policy Brief. 123, pp: 1-6, 2021.
[36] J. Lewis. The limits of policy labs: characteristics, opportunities and constraints. Policy Design and Practice. 4(2), pp: 242-251, 2021.
[37] H. Macq, C. Parotte and P. Delvenne. Exploring Frictions of Participatory Innovation between Sites and Scales. Science as Culture. 30(2), pp: 161-171, 2021.
[38] K. Mattocks. Policy experimentation and policy learning in Canadian cultural policy. Policy Sciences. 54(4), pp: 891-909, 2021.
[39] M. McKelvey and R. Saemundsson. The grey zones of technological innovation: negative unintended consequences as a counterbalance to novelty. Industry and Innovation. 28(1), pp: 79-101, 2021.
[40] N. Nesterova, E. Uzunova and P. van Egmond. EIT Urban Mobility Knowledge base of innovative solutions in urban mobility and living labs: Final Report. EIT Urban Mobility, pp: 105, 2021.
[41] N. Oliveira and D. Secchi. Theory Building, Case Dependence, and Researchers’ Bounded Rationality: An Illustration From Studies of Innovation Diffusion. Sociological Methods & Research. , pp: 004912412098620, 2021.
[42] S. Philipsen, E. Stamhuis and M. de Jong. Legal enclaves as a test environment for innovative products: Toward legally resilient experimentation policies. Regulation & Governance. 15(4), pp: 1128-1143, 2021.
[43] T. Schittekatte, L. Meeus, T. Jamasb and M. Llorca. Regulatory experimentation in energy: Three pioneer countries and lessons for the green transition. Energy Policy. 156, pp: 112382, 2021.
[44] F. Sengers, B. Turnheim and F. Berkhout. Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 39(6), pp: 1148-1171, 2021.
[45] O. Shvetsova and S. Lee. Living Labs in University-Industry Cooperation as a Part of Innovation Ecosystem: Case Study of South Korea. Sustainability. 13(11), pp: 5793, 2021.
[46] D. Soeiro. Smart cities and innovative governance systems: a reflection on urban living labs and action research. Fennia – International Journal of Geography. 199, pp: 104-112, 2021.
[47] L. Soeteman-Hernández, H. Sutcliffe, T. Sluijters, J. van Geuns, C. Noorlander and A. Sips. Modernizing innovation governance to meet policy ambitions through trusted environments. NanoImpact. 21, pp: 100301, 2021.
[48] A. Taeihagh, M. Ramesh and M. Howlett. Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies. Regulation & Governance. 15(4), pp: 1009-1019, 2021.
[49] J. Truby, R. Brown, I. Ibrahim and O. Parellada. A Sandbox Approach to Regulating High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Applications. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 13(2), pp: 270-294, 2021.
[50] L. Vaccari, F. Pignatelli, F. Molinari, C. Noordt, L. Tangi and European Commission. Joint Research Centre. AI Watch. Beyond pilots: sustainable implementation of AI in public services EUR 30868 EN (JRC126665). Publications Office of the European Union, 2021.
[51] A. Veseli, S. Moser, K. Kubeczko, V. Madner, A. Wang and K. Wolfsgruber. Practical necessity and legal options for introducing energy regulatory sandboxes in Austria. Utilities Policy. 73(March), pp: 101296, 2021.
[52] A. Wallsten, M. Henriksson and K. Isaksson. The Role of Local Public Authorities in Steering toward Smart and Sustainable Mobility: Findings from the Stockholm Metropolitan Area. Planning Practice and Research. 00(00), pp: 1-15, 2021.
[53] M. Wegner. New Approaches to Regulatory Innovation Emerging During the Crucible of COVID-19: In Responding to a Global Health Crisis, Industry is Discovering New, Efficient Ways of Meeting Objectives. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 55(2), pp: 463-466, 2021.
[54] X. Zhu and H. Zhao. Experimentalist Governance with Interactive Central–Local Relations: Making New Pension Policies in China. Policy Studies Journal. 49(1), pp: 13-36, 2021.
[55] A. Alaassar, A. Mention and T. Aas. Exploring how social interactions influence regulators and innovators: The case of regulatory sandboxes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 160(November 2019), pp: 120257, 2020.
[56] H. Armstrong, I. Bárd and E. Engström. Regulator Approaches to Facilitate, Support and Enable Innovation. BEIS Research Paper Series. 2020/003, pp: 1-66, 2020.
[57] A. Attrey, M. Lesher and C. Lomax. The role of sandboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age. Going Digital Toolkit Note. 2, 2020.
[58] D. Bauknecht, D. Heyen, P. Gailhofer and P. Gailhofer. Experimenting with policies: Regulatory Innovation Zones as a tool for sustainability transitions. (October), 2020.
[59] D. Bauknecht, T. Bischoff, K. Bizer, M. Führ, P. Gailhofer, D. Heyen, T. Proeger and K. von der Leyen. Exploring the pathways: Regulatory experiments for sustainable development – an interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Governance and Regulation. 9(3), pp: 49-71, 2020.
[60] L. Berglund-Snodgrass and D. Mukhtar-Landgren. Conceptualizing Testbed Planning: Urban Planning in the Intersection between Experimental and Public Sector Logics. Urban Planning. 5(1), pp: 96-106, 2020.
[61] I. Bruno, G. Lobo, B. Covino, A. Donarelli, V. Marchetti, A. Panni and F. Molinari. Technology readiness revisited: a proposal for extending the scope of impact assessment of European public services. 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020), pp: 369-380, 2020.
[62] F. Cuomo, S. Ravazzi, F. Savini and L. Bertolini. Transformative Urban Living Labs: Towards a Circular Economy in Amsterdam and Turin. Sustainability. 12(18), pp: 7651, 2020.
[63] European Parliament. Digital finance: Pilot regime on distributed ledger technology market infrastructures (DLT). 2020/0267(COD), 2020.
[64] G. Hasselbalch, B. Olsen and P. Tranberg. White Paper on Data Ethics in Public Procurement of AI-based Services and Solutions., 2020.
[65] L. Kimbell and L. Vesnić-Alujević. After the toolkit: anticipatory logics and the future of government. Policy Design and Practice. 3(2), pp: 95-108, 2020.
[66] L. Neudert. Hurdles and Pathways to Regulatory Innovation in Digital Political Campaigning. The Political Quarterly. 91(4), pp: 713-721, 2020.
[67] K. Olejniczak, S. Borkowska-Waszak, A. Domaradzka-Widła and Y. Park. Policy labs: the next frontier of policy design and evaluation?. Policy & Politics. 48(1), pp: 89-110, 2020.
[68] B. Pel, A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler, I. Kunze, J. Dorland, J. Wittmayer and M. Jørgensen. Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational framework and 12 propositions. Research Policy. 49(8), pp: 104080, 2020.
[69] C. Rosemberg, X. Potau, S. Leistner, F. Dijkstal, A. Vinnik, C. Tiriduzzi, A. Dave and K. Blind. Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Testbeds. Inter-American Development Bank, 2020.
[70] H. Thees, H. Pechlaner, N. Olbrich and A. Schuhbert. The living lab as a tool to promote residents’ participation in destination governance. Sustainability (Switzerland). 12(3), 2020.
[71] J. Truby, R. Brown and A. Dahdal. Banking on AI: mandating a proactive approach to AI regulation in the financial sector. Law and Financial Markets Review. 14(2), pp: 110-120, 2020.
[72] World Bank Group. Global Experiences from Regulatory Sandboxes. Finance, Competitiveness & Innovation Global Practice. 8, 2020.
[73] E. van der Waal, A. Das and T. van der Schoor. Participatory experimentation with energy law: Digging in a ‘regulatory sandbox’ for local energy initiatives in the Netherlands. Energies. 13(2), pp: 1-21, 2020.
[74] L. Bennear and J. Wiener. Adaptive Regulation: Instrument Choice for Policy Learning over Time. DRAFT working paper — Revised 12 February 2019, pp: 1-37, 2019.
[75] R. Buckley, D. Arner, R. Veidt and D. Zetzsche. Building FinTech Ecosystems: Regulatory Sandboxes, Innovation Hubs and Beyond. SSRN Electronic Journal. , 2019.
[76] Council of the European Union. Council Conclusions on Regulatory Sandboxes and Sxperimentation Clauses as tools for an innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient regulatory framework that masters disruptive challenges in the digital age. Official Journal of the European Union. (2020/C 447/01), pp: 1-3, 2019.
[77] F. Engels, A. Wentland and S. Pfotenhauer. Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance. Research Policy. 48(9), pp: 103826, 2019.
[78] L. Fuenfschilling, N. Frantzeskaki and L. Coenen. Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions. European Planning Studies. 27(2), pp: 219-228, 2019.
[79] A. Martin and G. Balestra. Using Regulatory Sandboxes to Support Responsible Innovation in the Humanitarian Sector. Global Policy. 10(4), pp: 733-736, 2019.
[80] B. McFadgen. Connecting policy change, experimentation, and entrepreneurs: advancing conceptual and empirical insights. Ecology and Society. 24(1), pp: art30, 2019.
[81] D. Parks. Energy efficiency left behind? Policy assemblages in Sweden’s most climate-smart city. European Planning Studies. 27(2), pp: 318-335, 2019.
[82] U. Pesch, W. Spekkink and J. Quist. Local sustainability initiatives: innovation and civic engagement in societal experiments. European Planning Studies. 27(2), pp: 300-317, 2019.
[83] R. Raven, F. Sengers, P. Spaeth, L. Xie, A. Cheshmehzangi and M. de Jong. Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies. 27(2), pp: 258-281, 2019.
[84] F. Sengers, A. Wieczorek and R. Raven. Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 145, pp: 153-164, 2019.
[85] C. Dunlop and C. Radaelli. Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of an Analytical Framework of the Policy Process?. Policy Studies Journal. 46, pp: S48-S68, 2018.
[86] P. Feindt and S. Weiland. Reflexive governance: exploring the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable development. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 20(6), pp: 661-674, 2018.
[87] D. Huitema, A. Jordan, S. Munaretto and M. Hildén. Policy experimentation: core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts. Policy Sciences. 51(2), pp: 143-159, 2018.
[88] P. Kobos, L. Malczynski, L. Walker, D. Borns and G. Klise. Timing is everything: A technology transition framework for regulatory and market readiness levels. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 137(October 2014), pp: 211-225, 2018.
[89] A. Kronsell and D. Mukhtar-Landgren. Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs. European Planning Studies. 26(5), pp: 988-1007, 2018.
[90] A. Kronsell and D. Mukhtar-Landgren. Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs. European Planning Studies. 26(5), pp: 988-1007, 2018.
[91] B. McFadgen and D. Huitema. Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: a multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers. Policy Sciences. 51(2), pp: 161-187, 2018.
[92] M. Menny, Y. Palgan and K. McCormick. Urban Living Labs and the Role of Users in Co-Creation. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 27(1), pp: 68-77, 2018.
[93] T. Rayner. Making space for innovation. Hacker Culture and the New Rules of Innovation Routledge, 2018.
[94] R. Soe and W. Drechsler. Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation. Government Information Quarterly. 35(2), pp: 323-335, 2018.
[95] M. Vazquez and M. Hallack. The role of regulatory learning in energy transition: The case of solar PV in Brazil. Energy Policy. 114(October 2016), pp: 465-481, 2018.
[96] J. Voß and A. Simons. A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”. Policy Sciences. 51(2), pp: 213-229, 2018.
[97] B. McFadgen and D. Huitema. Are all experiments created equal? A framework for analysis of the learning potential of policy experiments in environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 60(10), pp: 1765-1784, 2017.
[98] S. Moyson, P. Scholten and C. Weible. Policy learning and policy change: theorizing their relations from different perspectives. Policy and Society. 36(2), pp: 161-177, 2017.
[99] D. Zetzsche, R. Buckley, D. Arner and J. Barberis. Regulating a Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation. Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. 23(1), 2017.
[100] C. Ansell and M. Bartenberger. Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics. 130, pp: 64-73, 2016.
[101] S. Nair and M. Howlett. Meaning and power in the design and development of policy experiments. Futures. 76, pp: 67-74, 2016.
[102] UNESCAP. Sensitization Workshop on “Frontier Technology Policy Experimentation and Regulatory Sandboxes for Sustainable Development” (Virtual Meeting), 2015.
[103] J. Wiseman. Regulatory Islands. New York University Law Review. 89(5), pp: 1661-1742, 2014.
[104] T. Heikkila and A. Gerlak. Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars. Policy Studies Journal. 41(3), pp: 484-512, 2013.
[105] European Commission. Better Regulation Guidelines. Commission Staff Working Document. SWD(2021) 305 final, 2011.
[106] C. Radaelli. Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. 16(8), pp: 1145-1164, 2009.



This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By using the website and agreeing to this policy, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with the terms of our Privacy Policy.