Presentation on theme: "How does Regulation Affect Social Capital? Compliance, Defiance and Participatory Governance Regulatory Institutions Network ANU October 8, 2010 Valerie."— Presentation transcript:
How does Regulation Affect Social Capital? Compliance, Defiance and Participatory Governance Regulatory Institutions Network ANU October 8, 2010 Valerie Braithwaite
Regulation is … not just rules steering the flow of events
Compliance Outcome Compliance Process
Compliance Outcomes Actions or behaviour of entities or individuals eg weed management, chemical use Fail, satisfy or exceed compliance standards
Compliance Process Intermediate stages leading to compliance eg how to monitor, what to use to manage weeds Psychological, social and environmental determinants of compliance eg BISEP: Business, Industry, Sociological, Economic, Psychological
Win cooperation from most people, most times To have the majority on side (democratic respect) To manage the resource-rich minority (pragmatic security) Objectives of regulatory agencies
Braithwaite, Valerie (2009) Tax evasion In M. Tonry, Handbook on Crime and Public Policy Oxford: Oxford University Press
Paradigms for Processes or Outcomes Architectural Marketing (Social Modelling) Choice (Rational Cost-Benefit Decisions) Law Abidingness (Preserving Ethical Identity)
Challenge Paradigms working in harmony Compatible with Neil Gunningham and Peter Graboskys (1998) smart regulation and Reasons (1990) swiss cheese model with multiple means for changing behaviour and minimizing risk.
Defiance … is a signal that individuals express attitudinally or behaviourally toward an authority that communicates unwillingness to follow the authoritys prescribed path. Any of us can experience, indeed practice defiance if the circumstances are right.
Motivational Postures … are sets of beliefs and attitudes that sum up how individuals feel about and wish to position themselves in relation to authority. Motivational postures send social signals or messages to the authority about how that authority is regarded.
The Central Ideas of Threat … Agency and Social Distance Authority threatens everyone, by virtue of being an authority. As an authoritys threat increases, people use their motivational postures to adjust their social distance and establish a comfort zone for themselves in relation to the authority. Different contexts bring to the fore different postures, and different postures direct individuals to make different responses, some obliging and deferential, others adversarial and dismissive.
Five motivational postures: Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game playing
From Postures to Defiance A factor analysis of the postures produced two dimensions that represented two kinds of defiance: One was critical, but accepting of the system = Resistance The other was cynical and rejecting of the system = Dismissiveness
Two Types, Two Purposes Resistance – The purpose is to change the course of action that the authority is taking but not destroy the authority. I dont like the way you are doing this and I want you to change, but I dont dispute that we need an authority to regulate us in this area Dismissiveness – The purpose is to disable the authority, to prevent the authority from intervening in this aspect of life You have no business telling me what to do – no-one should have the authority that you have over me
Disillusionment with Democracy Values (seeking status, harmony)
What is our best model of resistant defiance? Resistance is about grievance. Grievance may involve the regulatory system and the democracy itself. Constraining grievance is a morally obligated pathway. Are there opportunities for managing resistant defiance? Yes, around perceived deterrence, perceived system integrity and disillusionment with the democracy.
What is our best model of dismissive defiance? Dismissiveness is less about grievance and more about competing for freedom from authority. Grievance combines with the desire for status and success to fuel the competitive pathway. Competition may be supported by alternative authorities. Constraining the grievance-competitive pathway is a morally obligated pathway. Are there opportunities for managing dismissive defiance? Yes, around perceived deterrence, disillusionment with the democracy and alternative authorities.
Theoretical propositions: Defiance in Taxation and Governance (Braithwaite, 2009) Authority threatens us all. In the process of dealing with authority, three selves go forward to face the enemy: a moral self a status seeking self a democratic collective self. Conclusion: Regulatory intervention in its outcomes and process needs to be respectful of these selves.
Moral self: a self that wants to be honest and seen to be honest, as law abiding, as not needing to be fearful of authority, a good person. I am a good person and the authority should recognize this. When a moral self is under-valued: The morally obligated pathway is weakened, and the way is cleared for defiance.
A status seeking self: a self that aspires to wealth, power and status in some cases and to a job, family and home in others. I have hopes of success and authority should not block my path. When a status seeking self cant be expressed within the authoritys domain: A competitive pathway to defiance comes into being, strengthened by alternative authorities that provide resources to defeat the government agenda.
Democratic collective self: a self that expects government to deliver in exchange for our cooperation, an expectation of being respected as a citizen. I am a good citizen and the authority should treat me and other citizens as valued participants of the democracy. When a democratic collective self is betrayed: A grievance pathway to defiance comes into being that is shared with others and expressed as protest against authority.
Implications for Governance Culture of respect – Strazdins (2000) concept of emotional work (help, share/empathize, regulate) Institutional integrity – a meaningful and valued purpose achieved with justice (procedural and distributive) Authentic, open and accountable deliberation – opportunity to show benefits, to acknowledge and diligently monitor risks Appreciation of cooperation
Responsive regulatory models Be responsive to the conduct of those being regulated in deciding whether a more or less intrusive intervention should be used to gain compliance Use only as much force as is required to elicit the desired outcome Set out a series of options that an authority might use to win compliance, sequenced from the least intrusive at the bottom to the most intrusive at the top Make people aware that coercion will be used, but that most are expected to comply with education and persuasion because the regulatory system has the support of the democracy/community The level of intrusiveness may be escalated up the pyramid until the intervention elicits the desired response De-escalation is desirable, once cooperation is forthcoming