IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens–experts’ interactions under different institutional arrangements: assessing the role of uncertainty, interests, and values


  • Bogliacino, Francesco
  • Codagnone, Cristiano
  • Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro


In this paper, we develop a framework to analyze the relationship between evidence and policy. Postulating a normative criterion based on cost–benefit analysis and the value of a piece of information, as well as a topology of the policy space defined by three characteristics (epistemic uncertainty, interests, and the degree of value conflicts), we identify the (Nash) equilibria of an interaction between experts and citizens in providing information to a decision maker. In this setup, we study three institutional arrangements (evidence-based policy, deliberative governance, and negotiated conflict) that differ in terms of reliance on experts and citizens for providing information. We show that different degrees of uncertainty, interests, and value-relevance surrounding the issue at stake result in vastly different arrangement performances; hence, to foster efficiency, rules should be contingent.

Suggested Citation

  • Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano & Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro, 2019. "Citizens–experts’ interactions under different institutional arrangements: assessing the role of uncertainty, interests, and values," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(5), pages 861-879, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:05:p:861-879_00

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. Francesco Bogliacino & Rafael Charris & Camilo Gómez & Felipe Montealegre & Cristiano Codagnone, 2021. "Expert endorsement and the legitimacy of public policy. Evidence from Covid19 mitigation strategies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3-4), pages 394-415, April.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:05:p:861-879_00. 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: .

    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.