IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i3p877-893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: A survey experiment in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Beyers
  • Sarah Arras

Abstract

Agencies consult extensively with stakeholders such as industry associations, nongovernmental organizations, and trade unions. One rationale for consultations is that these improve procedural legitimacy and lead to greater acceptance of regulatory outcomes by citizens and the regulated industry. While this presumption of a positive relation between stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of agencies is widespread, research analyzing this relationship remains scarce. Using a survey experiment, we examine the effect of open and closed consultations on the acceptance of procedures and regulatory outcomes in the field of environmental politics. The results demonstrate that consultation arrangements positively affect the acceptance of decision‐making procedures, especially when regulators grant access to different types of stakeholders. However, although the consultation arrangement itself does not directly affect acceptance of the regulatory outcome, procedural legitimacy matters, as it increases decision acceptance among individuals who are negatively disposed toward government regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Beyers & Sarah Arras, 2021. "Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: A survey experiment in Belgium," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 877-893, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:3:p:877-893
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12323
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morten Egeberg & Jarle Trondal, 2017. "Researching European Union Agencies: What Have We Learnt (and Where Do We Go from Here)?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 675-690, July.
    2. Åse Gornitzka & Ulf Sverdrup, 2015. "Societal Inclusion in Expert Venues: Participation of Interest Groups and Business in the European Commission Expert Groups," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 151-165.
    3. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    4. Christine Quittkat, 2011. "The European Commission's Online Consultations: A Success Story?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 653-674, May.
    5. Yee, Albert S., 1996. "The causal effects of ideas on policies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 69-108, January.
    6. Rasmussen, Anne & Carroll, Brendan J., 2014. "Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Union Online Consultations," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 445-459, April.
    7. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    8. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    9. Hans Agné & Lisa Dellmuth & Jonas Tallberg, 2015. "Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations? An empirical assessment of a normative theory," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 465-488, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guix, Mireia & Font, Xavier, 2022. "Consulting on the European Union's 2050 tourism policies: An appreciative inquiry materiality assessment," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarah Arras & Jan Beyers, 2020. "Access to European Union Agencies: Usual Suspects or Balanced Interest Representation in Open and Closed Consultations?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 836-855, July.
    2. Bastiaan Redert, 2020. "Stakeholder Mobilization in Financial Regulation: A Comparison of EU Regulatory Politics over Time," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1433-1451, November.
    3. Adriana Bunea, 2015. "Sharing ties and preferences: Stakeholders’ position alignments in the European Commission’s open consultations," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 281-299, June.
    4. Eduardo Araral & Alberto Asquer & Yahua Wang, 2017. "Regulatory Constructivism: Application of Q Methodology in Italy and China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(8), pages 2497-2521, June.
    5. Carl Vikberg, 2020. "Explaining interest group access to the European Commission’s expert groups," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 312-332, June.
    6. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "It's economic size, stupid! How global advocacy mirrors state power," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1326-1349, October.
    7. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    8. Adriana Bunea, 2014. "Explaining Interest Groups' Articulation of Policy Preferences in the European Commission's Open Consultations: An Analysis of the Environmental Policy Area," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(6), pages 1224-1241, November.
    9. Magnus Söderberg, 2008. "Uncertainty and regulatory outcome in the Swedish electricity distribution sector," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 79-94, February.
    10. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    11. Simshauser, Paul, 2024. "On static vs. dynamic line ratings in renewable energy zones," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    13. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    14. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8527 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    18. Eckert, Sandra, 2020. "EU agencies in banking and energy between institutional and policy centralisation," SAFE Working Paper Series 278, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    19. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2007. "Explaining Sunday Shop Policies," De Economist, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 207-219, June.
    20. Daniel J. Smith & Macy Scheck, 2023. "Examining the public interest rationale for regulating whiskey with the pure food and drugs act," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 85-122, July.
    21. Onna Malou van den Broek, 2024. "How Political Actors Co‐Construct CSR and its Effect on Firms' Political Access: A Discursive Institutionalist View," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 595-626, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:3:p:877-893. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.