IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmn/journl/y2018i3p135-152.html

Means against the Rule of Nobody

Author

Listed:
  • Mirko Pečarič

    (University of Ljubljana)

Abstract

This paper presents means by which relations between facts and decisions can be put on a higher, more transparent and accountable level. The complexity of relations, their exponential effects, new technology and numerous rules have increased the public administration's unaccountability for its actions - if it is even possible to talk about accountability at all. This kind of situation is presented as the rule of nobody that through multiple relations, competencies and division of labour diminishes the possibility to view a situation as a whole, and enhances the distinction between a person's formal role and his inner personal world. Classical decision-making procedures (more or less still) exclude interactions between political-legal and scientific institutions on one side and between the first and social groups on the other about modern risks that go beyond classical factory-related or occupational hazards. If the presented means (performance indicators, the avoidance of exclusive subjective evidence, the use of probability in individual cases, the right to clear information, the office for legislation and regulatory analysis and an IT platform) were formally integrated into decision-making, they could enable democratisation, for which the non-stop present and available communication links are sine qua non.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirko Pečarič, 2018. "Means against the Rule of Nobody," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 3, pages 135-152, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cmn:journl:y:2018:i:3:p:135-152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaco.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pecaric.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dawes, Robyn M. & Mulford, Matthew, 1996. "The False Consensus Effect and Overconfidence: Flaws in Judgment or Flaws in How We Study Judgment?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 201-211, March.
    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. Hannah Perfecto & Leif D. Nelson & Don A. Moore, 2018. "The category size bias: A mere misunderstanding," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(2), pages 170-184, March.
    2. Egan, Daniel & Merkle, Christoph & Weber, Martin, 2014. "Second-order beliefs and the individual investor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 652-666.
    3. Ma-Kellams, Christine & Lerner, Jennifer, 2016. "Trust your gut or think carefully? Examining whether an intuitive, versus a systematic, mode of thought produces greater empathic accuracy," Scholarly Articles 37093806, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Brenner, Lyle & Bilgin, Baler, 2011. "Preference, projection, and packing: Support theory models of judgments of others' preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 121-132, May.
    5. Cooter Robert D & Feldman Michal & Feldman Yuval, 2008. "The Misperception of Norms: The Psychology of Bias and the Economics of Equilibrium," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 889-911, December.
    6. Folli, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Biases in belief reports," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Grieco, Daniela & Hogarth, Robin M., 2009. "Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 756-771, October.
    8. Merkle, Christoph & Weber, Martin, 2011. "True overconfidence: The inability of rational information processing to account for apparent overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 262-271.
    9. Jared Williams, 2013. "Financial Analysts and the False Consensus Effect," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 51(4), pages 855-907, September.
    10. Dawes, Robyn M., 1999. "A message from psychologists to economists: mere predictability doesn't matter like it should (without a good story appended to it)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 29-40, May.
    11. Abu Khalaf K. Bashar & Firas Y. Hammash, 2017. "Are Amman Stock Exchange Investors Overconfident?," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 7-10.
    12. ATTANASI Giuseppe & NAGEL Rosemarie, 2008. "A Survey of Psychological Games: Theoretical Findings and Experimental Evidence," LERNA Working Papers 08.07.251, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    13. Gino, Francesca & Sharek, Zachariah & Moore, Don A., 2011. "Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 104-114, March.
    14. Don A. Moore & Samuel A. Swift & Angela Minster & Barbara Mellers & Lyle Ungar & Philip Tetlock & Heather H. J. Yang & Elizabeth R. Tenney, 2017. "Confidence Calibration in a Multiyear Geopolitical Forecasting Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3552-3565, November.
    15. Dorota Skała, 2008. "Overconfidence in Psychology and Finance – an Interdisciplinary Literature Review," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 39(4), pages 33-50.
    16. Masel, Joanna, 2007. "A Bayesian model of quasi-magical thinking can explain observed cooperation in the public good game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 216-231, October.
    17. Brown, Jason L. & Farrington, Sukari & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2016. "Biased self-assessments, feedback, and employees' compensation plan choices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-59.
    18. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2012. "Entrepreneurial Success and Failure: Confidence and Fallible Judgment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1733-1747, December.
    19. Dominik Bauer & Irenaeus Wolff, 2018. "Biases in Beliefs: Experimental Evidence," TWI Research Paper Series 109, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    20. M.A.L.M. van Assen & C.C.P. Snijders, 2010. "The effect of nonlinear utility on behaviour in repeated prisoner’s dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(3), pages 301-332, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cmn:journl:y:2018:i:3:p:135-152. 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: Helena Campbelle The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Helena Campbelle to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.eaco.eu .

    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.