IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v43y2026i1ne70008.html

Deciding who decides: Trust and support for elected official, expert, and citizen decision‐making regarding nuclear waste management

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew C. Nowlin
  • Chris Anderson
  • Justin Reedy

Abstract

Many policy issues, such as nuclear waste management, are complex and require expertise to address. In many such policy areas, decisions are made by elected officials with input largely from experts and not the public or other stakeholders. However, such top‐down approaches can create mistrust and political opposition. In the case of nuclear waste management in the United States, the selection of a single waste repository (Yucca Mountain in Nevada) by Congress led to strong opposition, stagnation, and an eventual call for a participatory, consent‐based siting approach to determine the location for a nuclear waste repository. While consent‐based siting is appealing, it is not clear if the public, broadly speaking, would support a participatory approach or an expert‐driven approach regarding nuclear waste management. In this paper, we examine public trust and public preferences for policy influence among elected officials, experts, and citizens. Specifically, we develop and test a theoretical framework that posits that the various cultural worldviews—hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism—shape trust in policy actors and that cultural worldviews and trust shape which policy actors the public believes should influence nuclear waste policymaking. Overall, we find the public trusts citizens and experts more than the government and elected officials. Additionally, we find that the public thinks experts should have more influence on nuclear waste policy than citizens or elected officials. Finally, regarding cultural worldviews, hierarchs tended to trust experts and elected officials and support their influence, whereas egalitarians tended to trust citizens and support their influence. 许多政策问题(例如核废料管理)都很复杂,需要专业知识来解决。在许多此类政策领域,决策都是由民选官员大量根据专家意见作出的,而不是采纳公众或其他利益攸关方的意见。然而,这种自上而下的方法可能会造成不信任和政治反对。在美国核废料管理方面,国会选择的一个废物处置库(内华达州的尤卡山)引起了强烈反对和停滞,并最终呼吁采用参与式、基于同意的选址方法来确定核废料处置库的位置。虽然基于同意的选址很有吸引力,但目前尚不清楚公众总体上是否会支持参与式或专家驱动式的核废料管理方法。本文中,我们研究了民选官员、专家和公民对政策影响的公众信任和公众偏好。具体而言,我们提出并测试了一个理论框架,该框架假定,不同文化世界观——等级制度、平等主义、个人主义和宿命主义——影响了对政策行动者的信任,而文化世界观和信任则影响了公众认为哪些政策行动者应该影响核废料决策。总体而言,我们发现,公众对公民和专家的信任度高于对政府和民选官员的信任度。此外,我们发现,公众认为专家应该比公民或民选官员对核废料政策有更大的影响力。最后,关于文化世界观,掌权者倾向于信任专家和民选官员并支持其影响力,而平等主义者倾向于信任公民并支持其影响力。 Muchas cuestiones de política, como la gestión de residuos nucleares, son complejas y requieren de expertos para abordarlas. En muchas de esas áreas de política, las decisiones las toman los funcionarios electos con la participación de expertos y no del público u otras partes interesadas. Sin embargo, estos enfoques de arriba hacia abajo pueden generar desconfianza y oposición política. En el caso de la gestión de residuos nucleares en los Estados Unidos, la selección de un único depósito de residuos (Yucca Mountain en Nevada) por parte del Congreso provocó una fuerte oposición, estancamiento y, finalmente, un llamado a un enfoque participativo y basado en el consentimiento para determinar la ubicación de un depósito de residuos nucleares. Si bien la ubicación basada en el consentimiento es atractiva, no está claro si el público, en términos generales, apoyaría un enfoque participativo o un enfoque impulsado por expertos en lo que respecta a la gestión de residuos nucleares. En este documento, examinamos la confianza pública y las preferencias públicas por la influencia política entre los funcionarios electos, los expertos y los ciudadanos. En concreto, desarrollamos y ponemos a prueba un marco teórico que postula que las distintas visiones culturales del mundo (jerarquía, igualitarismo, individualismo y fatalismo) configuran la confianza en los actores políticos y que las visiones culturales del mundo y la confianza configuran qué actores políticos el público cree que deberían influir en la formulación de políticas sobre residuos nucleares. En general, encontramos que el público confía más en los ciudadanos y los expertos que en el gobierno y los funcionarios electos. Además, encontramos que el público cree que los expertos deberían tener más influencia en la política sobre residuos nucleares que los ciudadanos o los funcionarios electos. Por último, en lo que respecta a las visiones culturales del mundo, los jerárquicos tendían a confiar en los expertos y los funcionarios electos y a apoyar su influencia, mientras que los igualitaristas tendían a confiar en los ciudadanos y a apoyar su influencia.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew C. Nowlin & Chris Anderson & Justin Reedy, 2026. "Deciding who decides: Trust and support for elected official, expert, and citizen decision‐making regarding nuclear waste management," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:1:n:e70008
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70008
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:1:n:e70008. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.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.