Suchergebnisse

Designing a framework for evaluating laws, rules and policies within any given legal system is a daunting task. Comprehensive schemes risk ending up as mere paper realities because of the demands they place on evaluators as well as on the addressees of evaluations. More realistic evaluation frameworks on the other hand may not yield many results. The OECD has a long track record of encouraging member countries to deal with 'regulation' in the wider sense of the word in a rationalistic and systematic way. These encouragements tend to involve recommendations, peer reviews, and the use of country surveys in order to establish progress in what the OECD usually calls 'regulatory policy' or 'regulatory management' ('better regulation' in EU parlance and sometimes referred to as 'meta-regulation' in the literature). Recently a new tool has been added. In a move parallel to the EU's efforts to 'complete the regulatory cycle', the OECD has developed a new Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation (hereafter referred to as 'Framework').

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.