Input from Whom? Public Reactions to Consultation Measures

Most legislation neither affects nor interests citizens equally. But should this variation in interest and affectedness impact who gets to influence policy reforms? This article examines US public opinion on this issue using a national survey experiment varying both the policy outcome (a bill’s passage/failure) and the type of constituency input granted by elected representatives (none/constituency surveys/targeting interested constituents/targeting affected constituents). It then compares reactions across treatment groups, examining the impact of outcome favourability as well as external and internal political efficacy. Results suggest that granting constituents explicit policy influence consistently affected perceived responsiveness in the expected manner, but that the different consultation procedures had more varied effects on decision acceptance. Furthermore, where the procedures impacted decision acceptance, they pushed the reactions of both the pleased and the displeased towards more muted responses. Finally, similar ‘cushion effects’ were present when external and internal political efficacy were incorporated into the analysis.

Linking Decision-Making Procedures to Decision Acceptance and Citizen Voice: Evidence From Two Studies

Government decision-making procedures and transparency ensure responsive governance. Yet, there are few attempts to assess how these two factors shape citizens’ intentions to voice opposition to government decisions. We predict that the effect of decision-making procedures on voice is contingent upon the fairness of government decision-making procedures. We also hypothesize that the strength of this effect will vary according to how transparent the decision-making process is. We test these hypotheses using two survey experiments, where we assess how the effect of procedural fairness of a decision-making process on citizen voice varies according to the level of transparency. Findings reveal that participants are least inclined to voice opposition when a decision-making process is fair and transparency high. However, when a decision-making process is unfair, greater transparency did not increase voice. We conclude that transparency can stifle voice for fair decision-making procedures but does not stimulate voice when decision-making procedures are unfair.

The Legitimacy of Representation: How Descriptive, Formal, and Responsiveness Representation Affect the Acceptability of Political Decisions

We examine how descriptive representation, formal representation, and responsiveness affect the legitimacy of political decisions: Who are the representatives, how are they selected, what is the outcome of the decision-making process, and to what extent do these three aspects matter for decision acceptance among the citizens? We examine this from the citizens’ perspective, and ask whether decisions are perceived as more legitimate when they are made by groups that reflect society in certain characteristics and chosen according to certain selection procedures. In a Norwegian survey experiment, we find that people are more willing to accept a decision when it is made by a group of people like them, and who are assigned as decision makers based on their expertise. Descriptive representation also serves as a cushion for unfavorable decisions. Moreover, when asked, the traditionally less advantaged groups tend to value descriptive representation more than other citizens.

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Procedural fairness theory posits that the way in which authoritative decisions are made strongly impacts people’s willingness to accept them. This article challenges this claim by contending that democratic governments can achieve little in terms of acceptance of policy decisions by the procedural means at their disposal. Instead, outcome favorability is the dominant determinant of decision acceptance. The article explicates that while central parts of procedural fairness theory are true, outcome favorability is still overwhelmingly the strongest determinant of individuals’ willingness to accept authoritative decisions. It improves on previous research by locating all key variables into one causal model and testing this model using appropriate data. Findings from a large number of experiments (both vignette and field) reproduce the expected relationships from previous research and support the additional predictions.

Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance

To what extent can the conduct of government officials help make unfavourable decisions acceptable to those that are affected by them? To provide an answer to this under-explored question, this paper presents findings from two scenario experiments that allow the conduct of individual officials to vary according to a pre-determined standard, while keeping an unfavourable decision constant in a setting that approaches the real world. There are three main findings. First, both actual conduct and perceived fairness of treatment affect decision acceptance. Second, actual conduct matters much less for decision acceptance than perceived fairness of treatment. Third, citizens’ beliefs about the moral right to a favourable outcome condition the effect of actual conduct (but not of perceived treatment fairness). In particular, morally disappointed citizens are less likely to accept the decision irrespective of how they are treated.