IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i1p17-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
  • Feie Herkes
  • Ian Leistikow
  • Jos Verkroost
  • Femke de Vries
  • Wilte G. Zijlstra

Abstract

Decision transparency is often proposed as a way to maintain or even increase citizen trust, yet this assumption is still untested in the context of regulatory agencies. We test the effect of transparency of a typical decision tradeoff in regulatory enforcement: granting forbearance or imposing a sanction. We employed a representative survey experiment (n = 1,546) in which we test the effect of transparency in general (providing information about a decision or not) and the effect of specific types of transparency (process or rationale transparency). We do this for agencies supervising financial markets, education, and health care. We find that overall decision transparency significantly increases citizen trust in only two of the three agencies. Rationale transparency has a more pronounced positive effect only for the Education Inspectorate. We conclude that the overall effect of decision transparency is positive but that the nature of the regulatory domain may weaken or strengthen this effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen & Feie Herkes & Ian Leistikow & Jos Verkroost & Femke de Vries & Wilte G. Zijlstra, 2021. "Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 17-31, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:1:p:17-31
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12278?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frédérique Six, 2013. "Trust in Regulatory Relations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 163-185, February.
    2. David Levi-Faur & Jacint Jordana, 2005. "The Rise of Regulatory Capitalism: The Global Diffusion of a New Order," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 598(1), pages 200-217, March.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. Majone, Giandomenico, 1997. "From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 139-167, May.
    5. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen & Femke de Vries & Wilte Zijlstra, 2018. "Breaking bad news without breaking trust: The effects of a press release and newspaper coverage on perceived trustworthiness," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 1(1).
    6. Kyeongheui Kim & Meng Zhang & Xiuping Li, 2008. "Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(4), pages 706-713, August.
    7. Graham Dietz, 2011. "Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other?," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 215-222, June.
    8. Kuei-tien Chou & Hwa-meei Liou, 2010. "‘System Destroys Trust?’—Regulatory Institutions and Public Perceptions of Food Risks in Taiwan," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 41-57, March.
    9. Kristina Murphy, 2016. "Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: Understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 93-109, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tobias Bach & Marlene Jugl & Dustin Köhler & Kai Wegrich, 2022. "Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1042-1057, October.
    2. Benjamin Monnery & Alexandre Chirat, 2024. "Trust in the Fight Against Political Corruption: A Survey Experiment among Citizens and Experts," Working Papers AFED 24-02, Association Francaise d'Economie du Droit (AFED).

    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. Ian Loader & Adam White, 2017. "How can we better align private security with the public interest? Towards a civilizing model of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 166-184, June.
    2. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Bartle, Ian & Vass, Peter, 2007. "Independent economic regulation: A reassessment of its role in sustainable development," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 261-269, December.
    4. Dong Hoo Kim & Doori Song, 2019. "Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect of brand experience on consumers’ construal level," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 255-267, May.
    5. Cunha, Bruno Queiroz & Pereira, Ana Karine & Gomide, Alexandre de Ávila, 2017. "State capacity and utilities regulation in Brazil: Exploring bureaucracy," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 116-126.
    6. Anders Cour & Holger Højlund, 2017. "Polyphonic Supervision," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 148-162, March.
    7. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    8. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    9. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    10. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    11. Kirkpatrick, Colin & Parker, David, 2004. "Regulation and the Privatisation of Water Services in Developing Countries: Assessing the Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30600, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    12. Michael K. McCall & Margaret M. Skutsch & Jordi Honey-Roses, 2021. "Surveillance in the COVID-19 Normal: Tracking, Tracing, and Snooping – Trade-Offs in Safety and Autonomy in the E-City," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 10(2), pages 27-44, April.
    13. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    14. Takumi Kato, 2021. "Brand loyalty explained by concept recall: recognizing the significance of the brand concept compared to features," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(3), pages 185-198, September.
    15. Wang, Xuehua & Wang, Xiaoyu & Fang, Xiang & Jiang, Qingyun, 2018. "Power distance belief and brand personality evaluations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 89-99.
    16. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    17. Andrea Goldstein & José Claudio Linhares Pires, 2006. "Brazilian Regulatory Agencies: Early Appraisal and Looming Challenges," Chapters, in: Edmund Amann (ed.), Regulating Development, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2013. "Governance mechanisms and regulation in the utilities: An investigation in a Taiwan sample," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 17-22.
    20. Tim Legrand & Diane Stone, 2021. "Governing global policy: what IPE can learn from public policy? [Review article: What is policy convergence and what causes it?]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(4), pages 484-501.

    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:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:1:p:17-31. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.