IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v99y2005i04p491-503_05.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • LEACH, WILLIAM D.
  • SABATIER, PAUL A.

Abstract

This study explores how trust arises among policy elites engaged in prolonged face-to-face negotiations. Mirroring recent evidence that citizens' procedural preferences (as opposed to policy preferences) drive trust in government, we find that interpersonal trust among stakeholders in consensus-seeking partnerships is explained by the perceived legitimacy and fairness of the negotiation process more so than by the partnership's track record of producing mutually agreeable policies. Overall, hypotheses derived from social psychology do as well or better than those based on rational-choice assumptions. Important predictors of trust include small and stable groups, generalized social trust, clear decision rules, political stalemate, congruence on policy-related beliefs, and absence of devil-shift (the belief that one's opponents wield more power than one's allies). Surprisingly, null or negative correlations exist between trust and network density, measured by membership in voluntary associations. The study illustrates the value of behavioral models that integrate institutional, rational, and psychological explanations.

Suggested Citation

  • Leach, William D. & Sabatier, Paul A., 2005. "To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 491-503, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:99:y:2005:i:04:p:491-503_05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540505183X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucie Baudoin & Daniel Arenas, 2023. "“Everyone Has a Truth”: Forms of Ecological Embeddedness in an Interorganizational Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(2), pages 263-280, June.
    2. Emilie Tran & Yu-chin Tseng, 2022. "To Trust or Not to Trust? COVID-19 Facemasks in China–Europe Relations: Lessons from France and the United Kingdom," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Patricia A. McKay & Laura Schmitt Olabisi & Christine A. Vogt, 2020. "Assessing improvements in socio-ecological system governance using mixed methods and the quality governance framework and its diagnostic capacity tool," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 41-66, March.
    4. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    5. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    6. Shilbury, David & O’Boyle, Ian & Ferkins, Lesley, 2016. "Towards a research agenda in collaborative sport governance," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 479-491.
    7. Theofanis Exadaktylos & Nikolaos Zahariadis, 2012. "Policy Implementation and Political Trust: Greece in the age of austerity," GreeSE – Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe 65, Hellenic Observatory, LSE.
    8. Russell W. Mills & Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, 2014. "Secondary learning and the unintended benefits of collaborative mechanisms: The Federal Aviation Administration's voluntary disclosure programs," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 437-454, December.
    9. Sarr, Sait & Hayes, Bunny & DeCaro, Daniel A., 2021. "Applying Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework, and design principles for co-production to pollution management in Louisville's Rubbertown, Kentucky," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Patricia Ann McKay & Christine A. Vogt & Laura Schmitt Olabisi, 2017. "Development and testing a diagnostic capacity tool for improving socio-ecological system governance," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 156-183, June.
    12. Mabiso, Athur & van Rheenen, Teunis & Ferguson, Jenna, 2013. "Organizational partnerships for food Policy research impact: A review of what works:," IFPRI discussion papers 1305, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Johanna Hornung & Nils C. Bandelow & Colette S. Vogeler, 2019. "Social identities in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 211-231, June.
    14. Matthew L. Hamilton & Mark Lubell, 2019. "Climate change adaptation, social capital, and the performance of polycentric governance institutions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 307-326, March.
    15. Andrew Pattison & William Cipolli & Jose Marichal, 2022. "The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72, January.
    16. Nicola Ulibarri & Bruce E. Cain & Newsha K. Ajami, 2017. "A Framework for Building Efficient Environmental Permitting Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Adam C. Howe & Mark C. J. Stoddart & David B. Tindall, 2020. "Media Coverage and Perceived Policy Influence of Environmental Actors: Good Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 298-310.
    18. Moshe Maor & Tereza Capelos, 2023. "Symposium: Affect and emotions in policy dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 439-448, September.
    19. Martins Priedols & Girts Dimdins & Viktorija Gaina & Veronika Leja & Ivars Austers, 2022. "Political Trust and the Ultimate Attribution Error in Explaining Successful and Failed Policy Initiatives," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    20. Antje Witting, 2017. "Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    21. McDonald, Sara L. & Rigling-Gallagher, Deborah, 2015. "Participant perceptions of consensus-based, marine mammal take reduction planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 216-226.
    22. Gabriel Leonardo & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2016. "Politicians, bureaucrats, and tax morale: What shapes tax compliance attitudes?," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1608, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    23. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    24. Steven Bernstein & Benjamin Cashore, 2007. "Can non‐state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 347-371, December.
    25. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:99:y:2005:i:04:p:491-503_05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.