Author
Listed:
- Coglianese, Cary
(Harvard U)
Abstract
Researchers who evaluate ordinary dispute resolution procedures understandably ask whether disputants are eventually satisfied with the resulting outcomes. But how should they evaluate techniques for involving the public in regulatory policymaking, i.e., techniques such as comment solicitation, public hearings, workshops, dialogue groups, advisory committees, and negotiated rulemaking processes? Researchers evaluating these various techniques have also typically used participant satisfaction as a key evaluative criterion. While this criterion may seem suitable for evaluating private dispute resolution techniques, those who disagree in policy-making processes are not disputants in the same sense that landlords and tenants, creditors and debtors, or tortfeasors and victims are disputants in private life. Disputes in regulatory policymaking arise over public policy, not over private grievances. This paper raises caution about using participant satisfaction, or other measures based on participants’ attitudes and opinions, in evaluating dispute resolution and public participation in regulatory policymaking. It argues that a reliance on participant satisfaction encounters two conceptual limitations, namely that (a) participant satisfaction does not necessarily equate with good public policy and (b) participant satisfaction is at best an incomplete measure because it excludes those who do not participate. In addition, the paper outlines a series of problems in applying, measuring, and interpreting participant satisfaction that make it a problematic metric for evaluating public participation in regulatory processes. In light of the conceptual and measurement problems with relying on satisfaction, evaluation researchers should resist relying on participant surveys to evaluate public participation techniques, and instead should focus attention directly on the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the decisions that result from different forms of public participation.
Suggested Citation
Coglianese, Cary, 2002.
"Is Satisfaction Success? Evaluating Public Participation in Regulatory Policymaking,"
Working Paper Series
rwp02-038, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Handle:
RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp02-038
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Neslihan Kulözü, 2014.
"Different Participant Groups, Different Success Definitions: An Exploratory Study in the Case of “Local Government and NGO Cooperation in a Participatory Democracy Project”,"
Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 47-67.
- Scott, Ryan P., 2018.
"Should we call the neighbors? Voluntary deliberation and citizen complaints about oil and gas drilling,"
Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 258-272.
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:ecl:harjfk:rwp02-038. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.