Involving citizens in regulation: A comparative qualitative study of four experimentalist cases of participatory regulation in Dutch health care

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Regulation & Governance Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1111/rego.12589
Bert de Graaff, Suzanne Rutz, Annemiek Stoopendaal, Hester van de Bovenkamp
{"title":"Involving citizens in regulation: A comparative qualitative study of four experimentalist cases of participatory regulation in Dutch health care","authors":"Bert de Graaff, Suzanne Rutz, Annemiek Stoopendaal, Hester van de Bovenkamp","doi":"10.1111/rego.12589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on responsive regulation argues that citizens should be involved in regulatory practices to avoid capture between regulator and regulatee. It also argues that including citizens can add an important perspective to regulatory practices. However, we know little about how citizens' perspectives are brought into regulatory practices. This paper draws on existing qualitative research to compare and analyze four cases of experimental participatory regulation in Dutch health care, focusing on the theoretical assumptions that citizen involvement (a) prevents capture, and (b) stimulates the inclusion of new perspectives. Our results show that involving citizens in regulation can increase transparency and trust in regulatory practices and familiarizes regulators with other perspectives. It is, however, up to the regulator to work on deriving benefits from that involvement—not only the practical work of organizing participatory regulation, but also the conceptual work of reflecting on their own assumptions and standards. We do find evidence for weak forms of capture and argue for the need to extend capture to involve multiple actors. We reflect on these results for theory development and regulatory practice.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12589","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The literature on responsive regulation argues that citizens should be involved in regulatory practices to avoid capture between regulator and regulatee. It also argues that including citizens can add an important perspective to regulatory practices. However, we know little about how citizens' perspectives are brought into regulatory practices. This paper draws on existing qualitative research to compare and analyze four cases of experimental participatory regulation in Dutch health care, focusing on the theoretical assumptions that citizen involvement (a) prevents capture, and (b) stimulates the inclusion of new perspectives. Our results show that involving citizens in regulation can increase transparency and trust in regulatory practices and familiarizes regulators with other perspectives. It is, however, up to the regulator to work on deriving benefits from that involvement—not only the practical work of organizing participatory regulation, but also the conceptual work of reflecting on their own assumptions and standards. We do find evidence for weak forms of capture and argue for the need to extend capture to involve multiple actors. We reflect on these results for theory development and regulatory practice.
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
让公民参与监管:对荷兰医疗保健领域四个参与性监管实验案例的比较定性研究
关于顺应民意的监管的文献认为,公民应参与监管实践,以避免监管者和被监管者之间的 "俘虏"。文献还认为,公民的参与可以为监管实践增添重要的视角。然而,我们对如何将公民的观点引入监管实践知之甚少。本文借鉴了现有的定性研究,对荷兰医疗保健领域的四个参与式监管实验案例进行了比较和分析,重点关注以下理论假设:(a) 公民参与可防止俘获,(b) 公民参与可激发新观点的融入。我们的研究结果表明,公民参与监管可以提高监管实践的透明度和信任度,并使监管者熟悉其他观点。然而,监管者必须努力从这种参与中获益--不仅是组织参与式监管的实际工作,还有反思自身假设和标准的概念工作。我们确实发现了弱俘获形式的证据,并认为有必要扩大俘获范围,让多方参与进来。我们将对这些结果进行反思,以促进理论发展和监管实践。
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
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
期刊最新文献
Trusting organizational law Trust platforms: The digitalization of corporate governance and the transformation of trust in polycentric space From de jure to de facto transparency: Analyzing the compliance gap in light of freedom of information laws Mapping the relationship between regulation and innovation from an interdisciplinary perspective: A critical systematic review of the literature Problem exposure and problem solving: The impact of regulatory regimes on citizens' trust in regulated sectors
×
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