Dominika Latusek, Anna Pikos, Frédérique Six, Marcin Wardaszko
Citizen trust in regulatory agencies is crucial for the effective functioning of financial markets and broader public governance. This paper investigates the validity of the Citizens' Trust in Government Organizations (CTGO) scale in a transitioning society with historically low institutional trust. Using the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (PFSA) as the focal organization, our study examines how trustworthiness dimensions—ability, integrity, and benevolence—apply in this context. The research combines a quantitative study, which validates the CTGO‐scale in a new cultural and institutional setting, with qualitative focus groups that explore citizens' perceptions of PFSA's trustworthiness. Our findings confirm the CTGO‐scale's reliability and extend its applicability to low‐trust contexts and specific regulatory agencies. However, focus group data suggest that the label for the “benevolence” dimension is best changed to reflect the impartial, commitment to the public good aspects typical of public organizations. We propose replacing benevolence with impartiality in trust measurement tools to better capture the structured, duty‐driven nature of public governance. This study advances the conceptualization of trust in regulatory agencies and provides a foundation for future comparative research across diverse governance settings.
{"title":"Citizen Trust in Regulators: Evaluating the Validity of the CTGO‐Scale in Transitioning Societies","authors":"Dominika Latusek, Anna Pikos, Frédérique Six, Marcin Wardaszko","doi":"10.1111/rego.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70055","url":null,"abstract":"Citizen trust in regulatory agencies is crucial for the effective functioning of financial markets and broader public governance. This paper investigates the validity of the Citizens' Trust in Government Organizations (CTGO) scale in a transitioning society with historically low institutional trust. Using the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (PFSA) as the focal organization, our study examines how trustworthiness dimensions—ability, integrity, and benevolence—apply in this context. The research combines a quantitative study, which validates the CTGO‐scale in a new cultural and institutional setting, with qualitative focus groups that explore citizens' perceptions of PFSA's trustworthiness. Our findings confirm the CTGO‐scale's reliability and extend its applicability to low‐trust contexts and specific regulatory agencies. However, focus group data suggest that the label for the “benevolence” dimension is best changed to reflect the impartial, commitment to the public good aspects typical of public organizations. We propose replacing benevolence with impartiality in trust measurement tools to better capture the structured, duty‐driven nature of public governance. This study advances the conceptualization of trust in regulatory agencies and provides a foundation for future comparative research across diverse governance settings.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144534084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to “Political Studies of Automated Governing: A Bird's Eye (Re)view”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/rego.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70051","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144796848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In contrast to the “quiet” politics of the pre‐2008 period, macroeconomic policy has become “noisy”. This break raises a question: How do independent agencies designed for quiet politics react when a contentious public turns the volume up on them? Central banks provide an interesting case because while they are self‐professed adherents to communicative transparency, individual case studies have documented their use of strategic silence as a defense mechanism against politicization. This paper provides a quantitative test of the theory that when faced with public contention on core monetary policy issues, central banks are likely to opt for strategic silence. We focus on the most contested of central bank policies: large‐scale asset purchase programs or “quantitative easing” (QE). We examine four topics associated with particularly contested side effects of QE: house prices, exchange rates, corporate debt, and climate change. We hypothesize that an active QE program makes a central bank less likely to address these topics in public. We further expect that the strength—and, in the case of the exchange rate, the direction—of this effect varies depending on the precise composition of asset purchases and on countries' growth models. Using panel regression analysis on a dataset of more than 11,000 speeches by 18 central banks, we find that as a group, central banks conducting QE programs exhibited strategic silence on house prices, exchange rates, and climate change. We also find support for three out of four country‐specific hypotheses. These results point to significant technocratic agency in the de‐ and re‐politicization of policy issues.
{"title":"Noisy Politics, Quiet Technocrats: Strategic Silence by Central Banks","authors":"Benjamin Braun, Maximilian Düsterhöft","doi":"10.1111/rego.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70052","url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the “quiet” politics of the pre‐2008 period, macroeconomic policy has become “noisy”. This break raises a question: How do independent agencies designed for quiet politics react when a contentious public turns the volume up on them? Central banks provide an interesting case because while they are self‐professed adherents to communicative transparency, individual case studies have documented their use of strategic silence as a defense mechanism against politicization. This paper provides a quantitative test of the theory that when faced with public contention on core monetary policy issues, central banks are likely to opt for strategic silence. We focus on the most contested of central bank policies: large‐scale asset purchase programs or “quantitative easing” (QE). We examine four topics associated with particularly contested side effects of QE: house prices, exchange rates, corporate debt, and climate change. We hypothesize that an active QE program makes a central bank less likely to address these topics in public. We further expect that the strength—and, in the case of the exchange rate, the direction—of this effect varies depending on the precise composition of asset purchases and on countries' growth models. Using panel regression analysis on a dataset of more than 11,000 speeches by 18 central banks, we find that as a group, central banks conducting QE programs exhibited strategic silence on house prices, exchange rates, and climate change. We also find support for three out of four country‐specific hypotheses. These results point to significant technocratic agency in the de‐ and re‐politicization of policy issues.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144513361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union (EU) is making regulatory efforts to allow for the safe integration of drones into civilian airspace through automated means. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664 concerning unmanned traffic management (a system referred to as “U‐Space”) furthers that commitment. Accordingly, drone operators must avail themselves of automatic traffic‐related “U‐Space services” concerning flight authorization, geo awareness, traffic information, and network identification before entering U‐Space airspace. Using infrastructural analysis, as proposed within Science and Technology Studies (STS), this article shows that while automation is meant to ensure safe traffic, it could also challenge U‐Space safety in at least three ways: by inviting reliability concerns for U‐Space infrastructure; because of the transition from human‐centric to automation‐centric systems; and by being subject to irregularities within the EU's framework. An infrastructural analysis, therefore, helps in unveiling important factors which influence the safety of automated technologies and in critically discussing the role of law in their regulation.
{"title":"Law and Infrastructure: Reliability, Automation Transition, and Irregularities of “U‐Space”","authors":"Samar Abbas Nawaz","doi":"10.1111/rego.70046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70046","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) is making regulatory efforts to allow for the safe integration of drones into civilian airspace through automated means. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664 concerning unmanned traffic management (a system referred to as “U‐Space”) furthers that commitment. Accordingly, drone operators must avail themselves of automatic traffic‐related “U‐Space services” concerning flight authorization, geo awareness, traffic information, and network identification before entering U‐Space airspace. Using infrastructural analysis, as proposed within Science and Technology Studies (STS), this article shows that while automation is meant to ensure safe traffic, it could also challenge U‐Space safety in at least three ways: by inviting reliability concerns for U‐Space infrastructure; because of the transition from human‐centric to automation‐centric systems; and by being subject to irregularities within the EU's framework. An infrastructural analysis, therefore, helps in unveiling important factors which influence the safety of automated technologies and in critically discussing the role of law in their regulation.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144319923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper advances research on policy accumulation by analyzing its political consequences in the French housing sector. It argues that, in the context of decentralization reforms, the accumulation of policy instruments has undermined national steering capacities and intensified territorial inequalities. Decentralization accelerated accumulation by decoupling policy formulation from the costs and administrative responsibilities of implementation, shifting these burdens onto subnational governments. The resulting proliferation of instruments politicized implementation, as local authorities confronted capacity‐driven trade‐offs between adhering to national directives and pursuing local policies, while simultaneously gaining opportunities to innovate and build coalitions with non‐state actors. Consequenty, local governments in economically dynamic areas could strategically leverage policy accumulation to advance their interests, whereas those in less affluent regions faced administrative overload. By adopting an institutional perspective on policy instruments, this paper shows how accumulation research can foreground the political consequences of accumulation, which increasingly shape the problem‐solving capacities and legitimacy of modern states.
{"title":"Decentralization, Europeanization, State Restructuring, and the Politics of Instruments Accumulation: The Case of the French Housing Sector","authors":"Francesco Findeisen, Patrick Le Galès","doi":"10.1111/rego.70047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70047","url":null,"abstract":"This paper advances research on policy accumulation by analyzing its political consequences in the French housing sector. It argues that, in the context of decentralization reforms, the accumulation of policy instruments has undermined national steering capacities and intensified territorial inequalities. Decentralization accelerated accumulation by decoupling policy formulation from the costs and administrative responsibilities of implementation, shifting these burdens onto subnational governments. The resulting proliferation of instruments politicized implementation, as local authorities confronted capacity‐driven trade‐offs between adhering to national directives and pursuing local policies, while simultaneously gaining opportunities to innovate and build coalitions with non‐state actors. Consequenty, local governments in economically dynamic areas could strategically leverage policy accumulation to advance their interests, whereas those in less affluent regions faced administrative overload. By adopting an institutional perspective on policy instruments, this paper shows how accumulation research can foreground the political consequences of accumulation, which increasingly shape the problem‐solving capacities and legitimacy of modern states.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144304597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Governments in many of the advanced economies expanded childcare, an exemplary social investment policy, in recent years. Yet, considerable regional variation exists in expansion efforts, and often the supply of childcare still does not match demand. We explore the politics of this regional variation by studying Germany, a country that recently introduced a legal entitlement to childcare. Despite this legal entitlement, we argue that local political and economic factors (continue to) matter for childcare expansion and regional variation in coverage. We expect left‐wing local political majorities to be associated with higher expansion and coverage rates. At the same time, tight local fiscal constraints should limit partisan room for maneuver and should slow down expansion. Analyzing local‐level data on childcare coverage rates, socioeconomic context factors, and government partisanship, we find evidence of conditional effects between fiscal and partisan variables. We furthermore examine how local governments reconcile gaps in childcare provision with the legal entitlement and what distributive consequences this has.
{"title":"The Local Politics of Social Investment Under Fiscal Constraints: The Case of Childcare Expansion in Germany","authors":"Erik Neimanns, Björn Bremer","doi":"10.1111/rego.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70037","url":null,"abstract":"Governments in many of the advanced economies expanded childcare, an exemplary social investment policy, in recent years. Yet, considerable regional variation exists in expansion efforts, and often the supply of childcare still does not match demand. We explore the politics of this regional variation by studying Germany, a country that recently introduced a legal entitlement to childcare. Despite this legal entitlement, we argue that local political and economic factors (continue to) matter for childcare expansion and regional variation in coverage. We expect left‐wing local political majorities to be associated with higher expansion and coverage rates. At the same time, tight local fiscal constraints should limit partisan room for maneuver and should slow down expansion. Analyzing local‐level data on childcare coverage rates, socioeconomic context factors, and government partisanship, we find evidence of conditional effects between fiscal and partisan variables. We furthermore examine how local governments reconcile gaps in childcare provision with the legal entitlement and what distributive consequences this has.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144269400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During and following the Covid‐19 pandemic, the European Union (EU) is taking first steps toward a European Health Union (EHU). There is no set definition of what an EHU is, but in this paper, we explore the popular support for different designs of an EHU, including a pillar in which healthcare policy competences are shared between the EU and national governments, a risk‐sharing, and a redistributive pillar among countries. The analysis draws on two conjoint experiments in which respondents are presented with policy packages, as well as on a follow‐up survey on political attitudes. One of the experiments focuses on a central fiscal capacity that provides financial help to countries hit by adverse shocks, including financing of national healthcare spending, while the second focuses on joint procurement of medical countermeasures. The surveys were fielded in five EU countries at the end of March/beginning of April 2020, in July 2020, and in November 2022. Our findings are the following: there is support for all three pillars of an EHU, which moreover rises with trust in the EU; respondents tend to prefer a health‐related fiscal capacity to other forms of EU fiscal capacity; direct experience with serious Covid‐19 infection raises both trust in the EU and support for the EU sharing in social policy competences; and more trust has a larger positive effect on support for an EHU for those without serious Covid‐19 experience than for those with. These findings suggest that to promote further EU integration, the European Commission may want to develop strategies to bolster trust in the EU.
{"title":"On the Design of a European Health Union: Public Preferences, Trust, and Experience With the Covid‐19 Crisis","authors":"R. Beetsma, F. Nicoli","doi":"10.1111/rego.70045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70045","url":null,"abstract":"During and following the Covid‐19 pandemic, the European Union (EU) is taking first steps toward a European Health Union (EHU). There is no set definition of what an EHU is, but in this paper, we explore the popular support for different designs of an EHU, including a pillar in which healthcare policy competences are shared between the EU and national governments, a risk‐sharing, and a redistributive pillar among countries. The analysis draws on two conjoint experiments in which respondents are presented with policy packages, as well as on a follow‐up survey on political attitudes. One of the experiments focuses on a central fiscal capacity that provides financial help to countries hit by adverse shocks, including financing of national healthcare spending, while the second focuses on joint procurement of medical countermeasures. The surveys were fielded in five EU countries at the end of March/beginning of April 2020, in July 2020, and in November 2022. Our findings are the following: there is support for all three pillars of an EHU, which moreover rises with trust in the EU; respondents tend to prefer a health‐related fiscal capacity to other forms of EU fiscal capacity; direct experience with serious Covid‐19 infection raises both trust in the EU and support for the EU sharing in social policy competences; and more trust has a larger positive effect on support for an EHU for those without serious Covid‐19 experience than for those with. These findings suggest that to promote further EU integration, the European Commission may want to develop strategies to bolster trust in the EU.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144238100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthew Alford, Reena das Nair, Margareet Visser, Stefano Ponte, Shingie Chisoro
A recent raft of due diligence regulation (DDR) addressing social and environmental conditions in global value chains (GVCs) has spread across the UK and Europe. An emerging literature on DDR highlights the politics of its formation. Yet, we know little about how existing sustainability governance along GVCs interacts with DDR or the wider structural context in which DDR is implemented. Empirically, we examine European DDR relevant to the South African wine sector before analyzing the sustainability requirements set by the state monopoly wine buyer in Sweden to assess the likely future impacts of DDR. We ask: How do existing sustainability governance initiatives shape the intended effects of due diligence in the South African wine value chain? We find that DDR tackles the symptoms as opposed to the root cause of predatory purchasing practices as a key impediment to improving sustainability outcomes. Finally, we suggest how to address these shortcomings.
{"title":"Due Diligence Regulation and Sustainability Governance in Value Chains: Lessons From the South African Wine Sector","authors":"Matthew Alford, Reena das Nair, Margareet Visser, Stefano Ponte, Shingie Chisoro","doi":"10.1111/rego.70038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70038","url":null,"abstract":"A recent raft of due diligence regulation (DDR) addressing social and environmental conditions in global value chains (GVCs) has spread across the UK and Europe. An emerging literature on DDR highlights the politics of its formation. Yet, we know little about how existing sustainability governance along GVCs interacts with DDR or the wider structural context in which DDR is implemented. Empirically, we examine European DDR relevant to the South African wine sector before analyzing the sustainability requirements set by the state monopoly wine buyer in Sweden to assess the likely future impacts of DDR. We ask: <i>How do existing sustainability governance initiatives shape the intended effects of due diligence in the South African wine value chain?</i> We find that DDR tackles the symptoms as opposed to the root cause of predatory purchasing practices as a key impediment to improving sustainability outcomes. Finally, we suggest how to address these shortcomings.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144260679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexandra M. Chesterfield, Tom W. Reader, Alex Gillespie
In established democracies, the threat of regulatory capture—often implicated in major crises—is usually less about financial mechanisms like bribery and more about the subtle social processes of cultural capture. But how exactly is cultural capture defined, theorized, and assessed, and what are its underlying mechanisms, manifestations, and impact? This article presents a systematic review (n = 39) of cultural capture, identifying 7 descriptions and 10 mechanisms. We consolidate these into five underlying concepts (CHAIN): Closeness; Homogeneity; Avoidance; Identities; and Networks. We introduce a parsimonious definition of cultural capture: social and psychological processes that bias regulators' beliefs and behaviors, aligning them with those of the regulatees and marginalizing alternative viewpoints. A key contribution of this article is developing a set of 33 novel behavioral indicators to examine these five concepts empirically and clarify their relationship to regulatory capture. Finally, the review highlights theoretical and methodological issues to address for the field to advance.
{"title":"Cultural Capture Among Regulators: A Systematic Review","authors":"Alexandra M. Chesterfield, Tom W. Reader, Alex Gillespie","doi":"10.1111/rego.70040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70040","url":null,"abstract":"In established democracies, the threat of regulatory capture—often implicated in major crises—is usually less about financial mechanisms like bribery and more about the subtle social processes of cultural capture. But how exactly is cultural capture defined, theorized, and assessed, and what are its underlying mechanisms, manifestations, and impact? This article presents a systematic review (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 39) of cultural capture, identifying 7 descriptions and 10 mechanisms. We consolidate these into five underlying concepts (CHAIN): Closeness; Homogeneity; Avoidance; Identities; and Networks. We introduce a parsimonious definition of cultural capture: social and psychological processes that bias regulators' beliefs and behaviors, aligning them with those of the regulatees and marginalizing alternative viewpoints. A key contribution of this article is developing a set of 33 novel behavioral indicators to examine these five concepts empirically and clarify their relationship to regulatory capture. Finally, the review highlights theoretical and methodological issues to address for the field to advance.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144238099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the law to function effectively in society, it must not only be enforced but also promote compliance, particularly in emotionally charged, polarized, or uncertain situations. This study explores the impact of legal sanction stringency and perceived sanction risk on the perceived legitimacy of and willingness to comply with mandatory vaccination laws in Czechia post-COVID-19. Using a 4 × 2 experimental design, we examined the effects of four sanction stringency levels and two levels of perceived sanction risk, alongside variables like trust in institutions, fear of disease, vaccination attitudes, and conspiracy beliefs, on a representative general sample. The findings provided no support for deterrence; neither sanction stringency nor perceived risk affected perceived legitimacy or compliance willingness, except for a small negative effect of the most stringent sanction. Perceived legitimacy, however, had a strong link to compliance willingness, and vaccine attitudes influenced both. Trust in institutions, fear of disease, and conspiracy beliefs were associated with perceived legitimacy but not compliance. These results challenge traditional views on legal creation and enforcement.
{"title":"Beyond Deterrence: Experimental Study of Factors Influencing Perceived Legitimacy and Compliance With Mandatory Vaccination","authors":"David Lacko, Filip Horák, Jakub Dienstbier","doi":"10.1111/rego.70039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70039","url":null,"abstract":"For the law to function effectively in society, it must not only be enforced but also promote compliance, particularly in emotionally charged, polarized, or uncertain situations. This study explores the impact of legal sanction stringency and perceived sanction risk on the perceived legitimacy of and willingness to comply with mandatory vaccination laws in Czechia post-COVID-19. Using a 4 × 2 experimental design, we examined the effects of four sanction stringency levels and two levels of perceived sanction risk, alongside variables like trust in institutions, fear of disease, vaccination attitudes, and conspiracy beliefs, on a representative general sample. The findings provided no support for deterrence; neither sanction stringency nor perceived risk affected perceived legitimacy or compliance willingness, except for a small negative effect of the most stringent sanction. Perceived legitimacy, however, had a strong link to compliance willingness, and vaccine attitudes influenced both. Trust in institutions, fear of disease, and conspiracy beliefs were associated with perceived legitimacy but not compliance. These results challenge traditional views on legal creation and enforcement.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"402 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144228745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：