Procedural Justice and the Design of Administrative Dispute Resolution Procedures

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Justice Research Pub Date : 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1007/s11211-023-00428-4
Marc Wever, Jan Fekke Ybema
{"title":"Procedural Justice and the Design of Administrative Dispute Resolution Procedures","authors":"Marc Wever, Jan Fekke Ybema","doi":"10.1007/s11211-023-00428-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Are certain characteristics of dispute resolution procedures associated with higher levels of procedural justice? We address this question through a quantitative analysis of real-world experiences of 194 professional legal representatives with the objection procedures of 81 Dutch administrative authorities. In our analysis, two general procedural characteristics are taken into account: the involvement of an independent third party and the extent to which the procedure is focused on the conciliation of competing interests. The involvement of an independent third party was not associated with higher levels of procedural justice. Procedures that were perceived to be more focused on the conciliation of competing interests were evaluated as more procedurally just, even more so in disputes where the administrative authority was perceived to have a higher degree of discretion and in disputes that ended in a negative result for the litigant.","PeriodicalId":47602,"journal":{"name":"Social Justice Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Justice Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00428-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Are certain characteristics of dispute resolution procedures associated with higher levels of procedural justice? We address this question through a quantitative analysis of real-world experiences of 194 professional legal representatives with the objection procedures of 81 Dutch administrative authorities. In our analysis, two general procedural characteristics are taken into account: the involvement of an independent third party and the extent to which the procedure is focused on the conciliation of competing interests. The involvement of an independent third party was not associated with higher levels of procedural justice. Procedures that were perceived to be more focused on the conciliation of competing interests were evaluated as more procedurally just, even more so in disputes where the administrative authority was perceived to have a higher degree of discretion and in disputes that ended in a negative result for the litigant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
程序正义与行政争议解决程序设计
争议解决程序的某些特征是否与更高水平的程序公正有关?我们通过对194名专业法律代表与81个荷兰行政当局的反对程序的实际经验进行定量分析来解决这个问题。在我们的分析中,考虑到两个一般的程序特征:独立第三方的参与和程序集中于调解相互竞争的利益的程度。独立第三方的参与与更高水平的程序公正无关。那些被认为更侧重于调解相互竞争的利益的程序被评价为在程序上更公正,在行政当局被认为具有更高程度的自由裁量权的争端中以及在对诉讼当事人不利结果的争端中更是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Social Justice Research, is an international multidisciplinary forum for the publication of original papers that have broad implications for social scientists investigating the origins, structures, and consequences of justice in human affairs. The journal encompasses the justice-related work (using traditional and novel approaches) of all social scientists-psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, policy scientists, political scientists, legal researchers, management scientists, and others. Its multidisciplinary approach furthers the integration of the various social science perspectives. In addition to original research papers - theoretical, empirical, and methodological - the journal also publishes book reviews and, from time to time, special thematic issues.
期刊最新文献
Same Same or Different? Pay Referents and Unfairness Perceptions in Two Employment Arrangements More Just for Me than Which Others? Personal Justice Ascendancy, Perceived Discrimination in Healthcare, and Personal Well-Being in African Americans When and How Information About Economic Inequality Affects Attitudes Towards Redistribution More Satisfaction, Less Equality: Distributive Effects of Transparent Needs in a Laboratory Experiment Is Organizational Justice Relevant for Enhancing Employee’s Commitment: An Empirical Analysis using Perceiver Supervisor Support as a Mediator
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1