Repressive Tolerance: The Eagerness not to Listen when Consulting
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Repressive Tolerance : The Eagerness not to Listen when Consulting. / Pedersen, Morten Jarlbæk.
In: Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 03.2017.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Repressive Tolerance
T2 - The Eagerness not to Listen when Consulting
AU - Pedersen, Morten Jarlbæk
PY - 2017/3
Y1 - 2017/3
N2 - Consultation of organised interests and others when drafting laws is often seen as an important source of both input and output legitimacy. But whereas the input side of the equation stems from the very process of listening to societal actors, output legitimacy can only be strengthened if consultation actually leads to improvements of legistlative proposals. A necessary condition for that to be the case is that consultation actually has an effect on proposals. However, this detailed study of consultation reports in Denmark – chosen as a most-likely case when it comes to consultation having a substantial effect on the substance of laws – shows that there is a great difference in the amenability of different branches of government but that, in general, authorities do not listen much despite a very strong consultation institution and tradition. A suggestion for an explanation could be pointing to an administrative culture of repressive tolerance of organised interests: authorities listen but only reacts in a very limited sense. This bears in it the risk of jeopardising the knowledge transfer from societal actors to administrative ditto thus harming the consultation institutions’ potential for strengthening output legitimacy.
AB - Consultation of organised interests and others when drafting laws is often seen as an important source of both input and output legitimacy. But whereas the input side of the equation stems from the very process of listening to societal actors, output legitimacy can only be strengthened if consultation actually leads to improvements of legistlative proposals. A necessary condition for that to be the case is that consultation actually has an effect on proposals. However, this detailed study of consultation reports in Denmark – chosen as a most-likely case when it comes to consultation having a substantial effect on the substance of laws – shows that there is a great difference in the amenability of different branches of government but that, in general, authorities do not listen much despite a very strong consultation institution and tradition. A suggestion for an explanation could be pointing to an administrative culture of repressive tolerance of organised interests: authorities listen but only reacts in a very limited sense. This bears in it the risk of jeopardising the knowledge transfer from societal actors to administrative ditto thus harming the consultation institutions’ potential for strengthening output legitimacy.
KW - Faculty of Social Sciences
KW - Stakeholders
KW - consultation
KW - Output legitimacy
KW - Regulatory quality
M3 - Journal article
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration
SN - 2001-7405
ER -
ID: 176662577