Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance

Grimes, Marcia

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x

Cited by 139 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical evidence from other studies suggests otherwise (Shapiro et al, 1994;Tyler, 2000;Grimes, 2006). Moreover, neighbourhood residents' disappointment with the explanation and justification of the location decision seems to have been an important factor in explaining their opposition to the location decision since Informants, in accordance with the earlier findings, were very well able to make a distinction between the location decision as such and the considerations that motivated it.…”

Section: (Informant 62 Councillor)supporting

confidence: 58%

“…Most notably, procedural fairness theorists have shown that people assess the considerations that motivated authorities' decisions when they form a judgement of these decisions and so arrive at a verdict on their acceptability. In fact, justification, according to Tyler (2000, p. 122; see also Grimes, 2006), is a key antecedent of authority.…”

Section: Authority In Contemporary Western Democracies 221 a Concepmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decide and Defend: Regaining Authority for Controversial Decisions Through Rendering Account

Karsten

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover design: Lisa KeijzerCover photo: Edwin Wiekens (made in Breda, the Netherlands; not one of the cases included in this book) Layout and printing: Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ISBN 978-94-6169-356-3 © Niels Karsten, 2013All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor(s). Decide and Defend Regaining authority for controversial decisions through rendering accountProefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van and suddenly you are doing the impossible." Most of the mayors and aldermen discussed in this thesis have done just that. They have managed to establish necessary, but highly controversial facilities for the homeless and have regained authority for their location decisions through explaining and justifying why they made these particular decisions. They have effectively shown directive leadership in a context that is particularly ill-disposed towards such a leadership style. Considering the controversiality of human service facility location decisions and the general mistrust of directive leadership, political-executives' ability to regain authority was unexpected. And indeed, not all succeeded in doing so to the same extent. The aim of this thesis was to gain understanding of how making controversial decisions affects executives' authority, more specifically, whether and how the rendering of account influences mayors and aldermen's authority. My attempt to answer that question has been an unforgettable experience, a true journey of discovery in the realm of locational conflict.Back in 2008, the project started out as a predominantly theoretical enterprise that focused on the relationship between the call for stronger leadership and the call for responsiveness. If it had not been for my supervisor, prof. Frank Hendriks, this thesis would have contained a multitude of intricate conceptual explorations of 'leadership', 'accountability', 'authority', 'political support', and the like. What I will remember most of Frank's supervision is the 'tja…' he occasionally wrote in the margins of sections of my work that I mistakenly thought of as original, though-provoking, and relevant pieces. I have taken 'tja…' to be the Frankian euphemism for 'I cannot say it is wrong', or even 'well thought out, well-written, but utterly irrelevant'. My sincere thanks, Frank, for reminding me to "really say something about really something", as you like to phrase it. A second word of thanks goes out to my co-supervisor, dr. LinzeSchaap, who has also played his part in 'keeping things real' by encouraging me to go out into the field, and at the same time keeping me sharp on non-subst...

show abstract

Section: (Informant 62 Councillor)supporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Authority In Contemporary Western Democracies 221 a Concepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decide and Defend: Regaining Authority for Controversial Decisions Through Rendering Account

Karsten

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He proposes that procedural fairness in a post-conflict state will influence political legitimacy more than voting in an election: "legitimacy has more to do with the exercise of government power than the access to this power by participation in elections" (Rothstein, 2009, p.14; see also Grimes, 2006). Key to Rothstein's concept of fair processes is impartiality (Rothstein, 2009;Rothstein & Teorell, 2008), and along with other authors (e.g., Ball, 2007;Cupit, 2007;Hartzel et al, 2001;Seligson, 2002), he sees corruption and exclusion (i.e., unfairness in the process of decisionmaking) as the main impediments to legitimacy in developing countries.…”

Section: B Procedural Sources Of Post-conflict Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have also demonstrated that procedural justice influences political trust in the absence of inter-personal interaction between authorities and citizens. For example, a study by Grimes (2006) investigated the causal effect of procedural justice on political trust and decision acceptance in Sweden, and found that perceptions of procedural fairness in the decision-making process for a new railway was causally responsible for citizens' trust in the rail authority, and their acceptance of the decisions made by the authority.…”

Section: B the Procedural Justice Model Of Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

Fisk¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimacy refers to the perceived rightfulness of authorities, and is central to citizens' perceptions of institutions such as the government. Legitimate authority is linked to acceptance of institutions and long-term stability of societies. As such, rebuilding the legitimacy of institutions such as the government and judiciary ('institutional legitimacy') is essential for stability in post-conflict societies. In this thesis, I explore the factors that lead citizens to view their government as legitimate following the reconstruction of central government institutions after a conflict. I draw on sociological, political science, social psychological and statebuilding theories to develop and present a theoretical model of post-conflict legitimacy.The model has three key components. The first encompasses relational and instrumental antecedents of legitimacy. Relational antecedents encompass fair and neutral decision-making, as well as respectful and dignified treatment, and are referred to collectively as procedural justice. Instrumental antecedents are those which involve outcomes to citizens, and include distributive justice (fairness in outcome distribution), outcome favourability (personal gain in outcomes), and government performance (the ability of the government to function effectively and provide services to citizens). These main variables are investigated along with contingencies relating to social groups that may influence the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy, such as national identification and group power. Testing of the first model component revealed that procedural justice was by far the strongest predictor of post-conflict institutional legitimacy, and was significantly stronger than instrumental variables such as distributive justice, government performance, and outcome favourability. Further, the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy was moderated by national identification and group power, suggesting that procedural justice operates through social identity to exert its positive effect. Moreover, the effect of procedural justice on government legitimacy was not simply due to trust and performance perceptions of local institutions, and was not diminished by the government's ability to provide essential services (as predicted by the statebuilding literature). 4Testing of the second model component revealed that two elements of local ownership-voice and local influence-weakly predicted legitimacy, with these relationships varying according to participants' position in the Nepalese caste hierarchy.Testing of the third model component revealed a significant social interaction effect, such that citizens' legitimacy beliefs are influenced by the legitimacy views of those around them. This effect persisted even when demographic, regional, and individual-level variables were controlled.This thesis concludes that procedural justice is more predictive of post-conflict institutional legitimacy than instrumental outcomes. Further, the relationship appears to operat...

show abstract

“…Research in equity theory and organizational justice indicates that people will accept unfavourable decisions if they feel the process was fair and just (Adams, 1965;Colquitt, 2001;Grimes, 2006). One reason for this acceptance might be that affective conflict is reduced when the process is perceived as being fair.…”

Section: The Inference Problem and Knightian Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiring leaders: Inference and disagreement about the best person for the job

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hiring is a critical determinant of organizational performance and has received considerable attention in economics where the focus is on identifying who is the best person for the job (an adverse selection problem) and ensuring that the person hired has incentives to behave in a desirable manner (a moral hazard problem). The implicit assumption in this literature is that everyone agrees on what constitutes the "best candidate." In this paper we show that the economics literature fails to recognize that people will generally disagree over "what is best?" Answering this question requires people to make inferences about the environment the organization expects to experience in the future and to match this environment with leader characteristics. Given the idiosyncratic nature of inference, there will be disagreement on the "best person for the job," even when everyone shares the same goals. The purpose of this paper is to outline why conflict regarding the most desirable person for the job emerges in rapidly changing environments and how this conflict is different from conflict that arises from self-interest and the presence of decision-making biases. The paper shows that conflict from inference, if properly dealt with, can actually improve decisionmaking, and what can be done to create the right conditions for this to occur. The paper also shows why hiring always involves an element of luck.

show abstract

Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance

Cited by 139 publications

References 51 publications

Decide and Defend: Regaining Authority for Controversial Decisions Through Rendering Account

Decide and Defend: Regaining Authority for Controversial Decisions Through Rendering Account

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

Hiring leaders: Inference and disagreement about the best person for the job

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About