Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2021-09-08T15:13:56Z
dc.date.available2023-01-27T23:46:01Z
dc.date.created2021-09-02T10:55:27Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationBach, Tobias Jugl, Marlene Wegrich, Kai Köhler, Dustin . Reputational threats and democratic responsiveness of regulatory agencies. The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy. 2021, 81-98 Routledge
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/87910
dc.description.abstractThis chapter studies decision-making behaviour of independent regulatory agencies. Theoretical accounts of delegation to regulatory agencies emphasise that losses of political accountability of regulators are traded off against potential gains in regulatory efficiency. The theory of credible commitment suggests that independent (non-majoritarian) regulatory agencies are more effective in regulating markets than organisations under direct political control. However, independent regulatory agencies operate in a political context and need to demonstrate their benefit to a diverse set of stakeholders, including elected politicians. We are hence confronted with a ‘paradox of autonomisation’ according to which more autonomous public organisations have to take into consideration external demands to a greater degree than less autonomous organisations. Independent regulatory agencies will thus be subjected to high accountability demands. We use the analytical lens of bureaucratic reputation theory to analyse how different types of external demands affect regulatory agencies’ attention to stakeholders. The chapter argues that reputation-sensitive regulatory agencies will exhibit differential response patterns to negative public judgements, depending on the kind of negative judgements and the type of actor criticising the regulator. In this chapter we use data from a systematic media analysis of public judgements and regulators’ communicative response, with the financial regulator and the utility regulator (electricity, railways, etc.) in Germany as empirical cases . We find that regulatory agencies respond differently to negative public judgements yet are not more (or less) responsive to political actors’ criticism compared to other types of actors. This finding questions independent regulatory agencies’ democratic accountability, yet the chapter also suggests that public criticism and debate is only one channel, among many others, through which regulators are held democratically accountable.
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherRoutledge
dc.titleReputational threats and democratic responsiveness of regulatory agencies
dc.typeChapter
dc.creator.authorBach, Tobias
dc.creator.authorJugl, Marlene
dc.creator.authorWegrich, Kai
dc.creator.authorKöhler, Dustin
cristin.unitcode185,17,4,0
cristin.unitnameARENA Senter for europaforskning
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
dc.identifier.cristin1930732
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.btitle=The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy&rft.spage=81&rft.date=2021
dc.identifier.startpage81
dc.identifier.endpage98
dc.identifier.pagecount202
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003175490
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-90448
dc.type.documentBokkapittel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.isbn9781003175490
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/87910/2/Bach_et_al_2021_Reputational%2Bthreats%2Band%2Bdemocratic%2Bresponsiveness.pdf
dc.type.versionAcceptedVersion
cristin.btitleThe Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata