IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20110162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Institutional Economics of Stakeholder Consultation; Reducing Implementations Costs through 'Matching Zones'

Author

Listed:
  • Frank A.G. den Butter

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Sjoerd ten Wolde

    (VU University Amsterdam)

Abstract

This paper discusses various ways to organise these consultations, so that a compromise agreement is reached on the solution of the (re)distribution problem. These institutionalised structures of consultation are referred to as 'matching zones' here. Practical experiences, mainly from the Netherlands, provide guidelines for the effective institutional setup of such 'matching zones'. Specifically, the design of a 'matching zone' should try to adhere to the following principles: (i) there should be a common interest and ample incentives for consensus; (ii) there should be the prospect of long, repeated interaction; (iii) there should be a balance between representation and efficiency; (iv) the constraints should be clear from the onset of the matching zone; (v) fairness should be strived for; (vi) IC technology should be utilised optimally; and (viii) informal contacts and an amicable atmosphere should be promoted. See also F.A.G. den Butter, S.A. ten Wolde (2014), The institutional economics of stakeholder consultation; how experts can contribute to reduce the costs of reaching compromise agreements. In C. Martini & M. Boumans (Eds.), Experts and Consensus in Social Sciences (Ethical Economy, Vol. 50) (pp. 17-48). New York: Springer.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank A.G. den Butter & Sjoerd ten Wolde, 2011. "The Institutional Economics of Stakeholder Consultation; Reducing Implementations Costs through 'Matching Zones'," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-162/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20110162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/11162.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Isaac & Deborah Mathieu & Edward Zajac, 1991. "Institutional framing and perceptions of fairness," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 329-370, September.
    2. Frank A.G. den Butter & Robert H.J. Mosch, 2003. "The Dutch Miracle: Institutions, Networks, and Trust," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 159(2), pages 362-391, June.
    3. Frank A.G. den Butter, 2010. "Transaction Management: Value Creation by Reducing Transaction Costs," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-051/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Otto, Ilona M. & Wechsung, Frank, 2014. "The effects of rules and communication in a behavioral irrigation experiment with power asymmetries carried out in North China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 10-20.
    3. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
    4. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    5. Berggren, Niclas & Daunfeldt, Sven-Olov & Hellström, Jörgen, 2014. "Social trust and central-bank independence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 425-439.
    6. Lex Borghans & Ben Kriechel, 2009. "Wage Structure and Labor Mobility in The Netherlands, 1999-2003," NBER Chapters, in: The Structure of Wages: An International Comparison, pages 125-148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Alexander Hijzen & Pedro S. Martins & Jante Parlevliet, 2017. "Collective Bargaining Through the Magnifying Glass: A Comparison Between the Netherlands and Portugal," IMF Working Papers 2017/275, International Monetary Fund.
    8. Kang, Byeongwoo & Nabeshima, Kaoru & Cheng, Fang-Ting, 2015. "Avoiding the middle income trap : indigenous innovative effort vs foreign innovative effort," IDE Discussion Papers 509, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    9. Kakizawa, Hisanobu, 2017. "The value of punishment of free riders: A case study on the receiving fee system of the Japanese public broadcasting organization," 14th ITS Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Kyoto 2017: Mapping ICT into Transformation for the Next Information Society 168496, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    11. Bruno S. Frey & Felix Oberholzer-Gee, 1996. "Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 353-376.
    12. Sanmugam Annamalah & Murali Raman & Govindan Marthandan & Aravindan Kalisri Logeswaran, 2020. "Embracing Technology and Propelling SMEs through Open Innovation Transformation," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 10(4), pages 95-122.
    13. den Butter, Frank A. G. & van Gameren, Edwin, 2004. "Employment policy in a dynamic labour market: simulations using a multifirm flow model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 283-301, February.
    14. John T. Addison, 2016. "Collective bargaining systems and macroeconomic and microeconomic flexibility: the quest for appropriate institutional forms in advanced economies," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-53, December.
    15. Neuteleers, Stijn & Mulder, Machiel & Hindriks, Frank, 2017. "Assessing fairness of dynamic grid tariffs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 111-120.
    16. David Chavanne, 2018. "Generalized Trust, Need for Cognitive Closure, and the Perceived Acceptability of Personal Data Collection," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-18, April.
    17. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    18. Mia Reinholt Fosgaard & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & Nicolai Juul Foss, 2017. "Consumer or citizen? Prosocial behaviors in markets and non-markets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 231-253, August.
    19. Elliott, Catherine S. & Hayward, Donald M. & Canon, Sebastian, 1998. "Institutional framing: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 455-464, May.
    20. Lei Delsen & Erik Poutsma, 2005. "Labour market institutions and economic performance in the Netherlands," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 169-196.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Institutional economics; G2B and G2C relationship; public-private cooperation; transaction costs; regulatory pressure; matching zone;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government

    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:tin:wpaper:20110162. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.