IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v17y2023i1p61-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different encounter behaviors: Businesses in encounters with regulatory agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Helle Ørsted Nielsen
  • Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen

Abstract

Studies on regulatory encounters have shown that the interaction between regulator and regulatee is important for implementation of public policy. Much of this research examines how the behavior of frontline workers in such encounters affects regulatee compliance, that is, an outcome of the encounter, but we know less about the behavior that regulatees bring to these encounters. This paper therefore examines how businesses behave in encounters with regulatory authorities, and whether we can identify distinct, multidimensional types of encounter behavior. Using survey data from representative samples of Danish businesses and an exploratory cluster analysis, we identify five types of encounter behavior. We label these “Cooperators,” “Accommodators,” “Game players,” “Protesters,” and “Fighters.” We believe this framework provides a useful next step in a research agenda on businesses' behavior in regulatory encounters.

Suggested Citation

  • Helle Ørsted Nielsen & Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen, 2023. "Different encounter behaviors: Businesses in encounters with regulatory agencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 61-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:1:p:61-82
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12455
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12455?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. Ruthanne Huising & Susan S. Silbey, 2011. "Governing the gap : Forging safe science through relational regulation," Post-Print hal-02311930, HAL.
    2. Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen & Christine Parker, 2009. "Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 376-399, December.
    3. Valerie Braithwaite, 2009. "Defiance in Taxation and Governance," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12542.
    4. Gitte Sommer Harrits & Marie Østergaard Møller, 2014. "Prevention at the Front Line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 447-480, May.
    5. Makkai, Toni & Braithwaite, John, 1992. "In and Out of the Revolving Door: Making Sense of Regulatory Capture," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 61-78, January.
    6. Kristina Murphy, 2016. "Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: Understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 93-109, March.
    7. Michelle C. Pautz, 2009. "Perceptions of the Regulated Community in Environmental Policy: The View from Below," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 26(5), pages 533-550, September.
    8. Buckley, Jenifer A., 2015. "Food safety regulation and small processing: A case study of interactions between processors and inspectors," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 74-82.
    9. Ruthanne Huising & Susan S. Silbey, 2011. "Governing the gap: Forging safe science through relational regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 14-42, March.
    10. Sara Rinfret & Michelle C. Pautz, 2018. "On the Front Lines of Implementing Environmental Regulation: The Perspective of the Regulated Community in Montana," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(3), pages 422-438, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gokce Basbug & Ayn Cavicchi & Susan S. Silbey, 2023. "Rank Has Its Privileges: Explaining Why Laboratory Safety Is a Persistent Challenge," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 571-587, May.
    2. Seung‐Hun Hong & Jong‐sung You, 2018. "Limits of regulatory responsiveness: Democratic credentials of responsive regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 413-427, September.
    3. Palmer, Mark & Toral, Inci & Truong, Yann & Lowe, Fiona, 2022. "Institutional pioneers and articulation work in digital platform infrastructure-building," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 930-945.
    4. Netta Barak‐Corren & Yael Kariv‐Teitelbaum, 2021. "Behavioral responsive regulation: Bringing together responsive regulation and behavioral public policy," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 163-182, November.
    5. Christine Parker, 2013. "Twenty years of responsive regulation: An appreciation and appraisal," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 2-13, March.
    6. Fábio Pereira Silva & Reinaldo Guerreiro & Eduardo Flores, 2019. "Voluntary versus enforced tax compliance: the slippery slope framework in the Brazilian context," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 66(2), pages 147-180, June.
    7. Anjani Kumar & Ashok K. Mishra & Sunil Saroj & Vinay K. Sonkar & Ganesh Thapa & Pramod K. Joshi, 2020. "Food safety measures and food security of smallholder dairy farmers: Empirical evidence from Bihar, India," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 363-384, June.
    8. Matthias Kasper & James Alm, 2022. "Does the Bomb-crater Effect Really Exist? Evidence from the Laboratory," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 78(1-2), pages 87-111.
    9. Mehmet Nar, 2015. "The Effects of Behavioral Economics on Tax Amnesty," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 5(2), pages 580-589.
    10. Jason Barnes & Harriet Whiley & Kirstin Ross & James Smith, 2022. "Defining Food Safety Inspection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Anna Hutchens, 2011. "Playing games of governance: How and why Fair Trade pioneers evade corporate capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 221-240, June.
    12. Semjén, András, 2017. "Az adózói magatartás különféle magyarázatai [Various explanations for tax compliance]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 140-184.
    13. Katharina Gangl & Erich Kirchler & Christian Lorenz & Benno Torgler, 2015. "Wealthy Tax Non-Filers in a Developing Nation: The Roles of Taxpayer Knowledge, Perceived Corruption and Service Orientation in Pakistan," CREMA Working Paper Series 2015-08, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    14. PETRAȘCU Daniela & CIOCANEA Bianca Cristina & PIȚU Ioan Cosmin, 2021. "Tax Evasion- Corrosive Factor for the National Economy," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 01, March.
    15. Ruthanne Huising, 2014. "The Erosion of Expert Control Through Censure Episodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1633-1661, December.
    16. Kirchler, Erich & Wahl, Ingrid, 2010. "Tax compliance inventory TAX-I: Designing an inventory for surveys of tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 331-346, June.
    17. Huiqi Yan & Jeroen van der Heijden & Benjamin van Rooij, 2017. "Symmetric and asymmetric motivations for compliance and violation: A crisp set qualitative comparative analysis of Chinese farmers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 64-80, March.
    18. Peter Mascini & Eelco Van Wijk, 2009. "Responsive regulation at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 27-47, March.
    19. Per J. Agrell & Axel Gautier, 2017. "A Theory of Soft Capture," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 571-596, July.
    20. Amrita Bahri & Monica Lugo, 2020. "Trumping Capacity Gap with Negotiation Strategies: the Mexican USMCA Negotiation Experience," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 1-23.

    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:17:y:2023:i:1:p:61-82. 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.