Does enforcement style influence citizen trust in regulatory agencies? An experiment in six countries

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1093/jopart/muae018
Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Marija Aleksovska, Judith van Erp, Sharon Gilad, Libby Maman, Tobias Bach, Moritz Kappler, Wouter Van Dooren, Rahel M Schomaker, Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen
{"title":"Does enforcement style influence citizen trust in regulatory agencies? An experiment in six countries","authors":"Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Marija Aleksovska, Judith van Erp, Sharon Gilad, Libby Maman, Tobias Bach, Moritz Kappler, Wouter Van Dooren, Rahel M Schomaker, Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Establishing and maintaining citizen trust is vital for the effectiveness and long-term viability of regulatory agencies. However, limited empirical research has been conducted on the relationship between regulatory action and citizen trust. This article addresses this gap by investigating the influence of various regulatory enforcement styles on citizen trust. We conducted a pre-registered and representative survey experiment in six countries (n=5765): Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Norway. Our study focuses on three key dimensions of enforcement style: formalism, coerciveness, and accommodation. We hypothesize that a strict and punitive enforcement style with minimal accommodation will enhance citizen trust. Surprisingly, we found no overall effect of enforcement on trust. However, specifically high levels of formalism (strictness) and coerciveness (punitiveness) exhibited a small positive effect on trust. Furthermore, we observed no discernible impact of an accommodative enforcement style. Additional analyses revealed that the effects of enforcement style were not consistent across country and regulatory domains. This suggests we need to reconsider assumptions underlying enforcement theory, as our findings imply that public trust seems less conditional on heavy-handed enforcement than initially anticipated.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Establishing and maintaining citizen trust is vital for the effectiveness and long-term viability of regulatory agencies. However, limited empirical research has been conducted on the relationship between regulatory action and citizen trust. This article addresses this gap by investigating the influence of various regulatory enforcement styles on citizen trust. We conducted a pre-registered and representative survey experiment in six countries (n=5765): Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Norway. Our study focuses on three key dimensions of enforcement style: formalism, coerciveness, and accommodation. We hypothesize that a strict and punitive enforcement style with minimal accommodation will enhance citizen trust. Surprisingly, we found no overall effect of enforcement on trust. However, specifically high levels of formalism (strictness) and coerciveness (punitiveness) exhibited a small positive effect on trust. Furthermore, we observed no discernible impact of an accommodative enforcement style. Additional analyses revealed that the effects of enforcement style were not consistent across country and regulatory domains. This suggests we need to reconsider assumptions underlying enforcement theory, as our findings imply that public trust seems less conditional on heavy-handed enforcement than initially anticipated.
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
执法风格会影响公民对监管机构的信任吗?在六个国家进行的实验
建立和维护公民信任对监管机构的有效性和长期生存能力至关重要。然而,关于监管行动与公民信任之间关系的实证研究十分有限。本文通过研究各种监管执法方式对公民信任的影响,弥补了这一空白。我们在六个国家进行了预先登记的代表性调查实验(n=5765):比利时、丹麦、德国、以色列、荷兰和挪威。我们的研究侧重于执法风格的三个关键维度:形式主义、强制和通融。我们假设,严格和惩罚性的执法风格以及最低限度的通融将提高公民信任度。令人惊讶的是,我们发现执法对信任没有整体影响。然而,具体来说,高水平的形式主义(严格性)和强制力(惩罚性)对信任有微小的积极影响。此外,我们还观察到宽松的执法风格也没有明显的影响。其他分析表明,执法风格对不同国家和监管领域的影响并不一致。这表明,我们需要重新考虑执法理论的基本假设,因为我们的研究结果表明,公众信任对高压执法的依赖程度似乎低于最初的预期。
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
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
期刊最新文献
The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents A reputational perspective on structural reforms: How media reputations are related to the structural reform likelihood of public agencies Making Administrative Work Matter in Public Service Delivery: A Lens for Linking Practice with the Purpose of Office Gendered Administrative Burden: Regulating Gendered Bodies, Labor, and Identity Procedural Politicking for What? Bureaucratic Reputation and Democratic Governance
×
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