Trust and Hope in Democracy and Regulation

1. Trust and Hope in Democracy and Regulation Valerie Braithwaite Regulatory Institutions Network The Australian National University Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, July 9, 2010

2. Simple models of regulation The traditional model from law: command and control The dominant model from economics: rational cost-benefit analysis Neither do the job by themselves

3. Regulation is … steering the flow of events

4. The way forward Compliance cannot be elicited effectively either through making law and imposing penalties or through direct appeals to self interest. But both are an important part of a coordinated, multi-pronged and responsive compliance plan (Gunningham & Grabosky Smart Regulation 1998, Ayres & J Braithwaite Responsive Regulation 1992)

5. Compliance without coercion Know what is required Have capacity or ability to comply Willing to comply (Bandura 1986; Carver & Scheier 1998; Kagan & Scholz 1984; Mitchell 1994)

8. Turning talk into action Law - Authorities can use coercion to gain compliance Incentives – Authorities can make it easier to comply and show benefits Opportunities – Authorities make it hard not to comply Significant Others – Authorities can delegate compliance management to others

9. New implications Nodal governance (Burris, Drahos and Shearing 2005; Shearing and Wood 2003) Government regulates the regulators – Meta-regulation (Grabosky 1997) Government can appear ineffectual Government can lose face with the people

10. Two models about steering Wheel of Social Alignments Responsive Regulatory Pyramids

11. Braithwaite, Valerie (2009) ‘Tax evasion’ In M. Tonry, Handbook on Crime and Public Policy Oxford: Oxford University Press

12. Figure 1: The Regulatory System surrounding the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) and Unlawful Non-Citizens (UNC)/Bridging Visa E Holders (BVE)

13. What have we learnt? Context matters Individual differences matter Social relationships matterWe are in the business of managing personal and social identities

14. Responsive regulation is a practice that addresses and deals with complexity. It welcomes the voice of dissidents, deliberates on shared community goals and understandings, enforces agreed upon standards, preferably through teaching, persuading and encouraging those who fall short, but it uses coercion when necessary to achieve its regulatory objectives.

15. Call in military Firearms Physical contact eg push apart gangs with shields Rubber bullets and other less lethal special weapons Physical presence - arrival with fanfare Community policing, problem-solving GNR gang fighting control pyramid in Timor-Leste Courtesy of John Braithwaite

16. The ATO Compliance Model

17. ATO Compliance Model

18. Regulatory Pyramid Strengths-based Pyramid From J. Braithwaite, T. Makkai and V. Braithwaite, Regulating Aged Care, Edward Elgar, 2007.

19. Network partner Network partner Network partner Network partner Network partner Network partner Networked regulation plus-plus Network partner Network partner Networked regulation plus Network partner Network partner Networked regulation Network partner Network partner Self-regulation J. Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation and Developing Economies, World Development, 34, 2006, 884-898.

20. 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

25. 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.

26. The Central Ideas of Threat … Agency and Social Distance Authority threatens everyone, by virtue of being an authority. As an authority’s 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.

27. Five motivational postures: Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game playing

28. How Do We Measure Socially Proximal Postures? Note: Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

29. How Do We Measure Socially Proximal Postures? Note: Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

30. How Do We Measure Socially Distal Postures? Note: Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

31. How Do We Measure Socially Distal Postures? Note: Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

32. How Do We Measure Socially Distal Postures? Note: Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

34. 12 Game playing 11 9 Disengagement 8 50 Resistance 55 70 Capitulation 62 82 Hope Commitment Democracy 84 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent agreement Percent endorsing each motivational posture to federal government

35. From Postures to Defiance

36. Defiance … is a signal that individuals express attitudinally or behaviourally toward an authority (and shared with others) that communicates unwillingness to follow the authority’s prescribed path without question or protest. Any of us can experience, indeed practice defiance if the circumstances are right.

37. Two Types, Two Purposes Resistance – The purpose is to change the course of action that the authority is taking but not destroy the authority itself. “ I don’t like the way you are doing this and I want you to change, but I don’t 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”

38. Resistant defiance is … A battle between pathways of moral obligation and of grievance. Moral obligation or the belief that the law should be obeyed reins in a person’s defiance. Grievance or the belief that government has broken its contract with citizens fuels defiance.

39. Impact on Governance: Resistance Resistant defiance is noisy and time consuming – but does not necessarily lead to law breaking. Reducing resistant defiance means authorities have to improve their institutional integrity. Individual agencies can improve their institutional integrity, but importantly government needs to lead by example.

40. Dismissive Defiance is … A battle between pathways of moral obligation and of status seeking. Moral obligation or the belief that one shouldn’t bend the rules to get ahead reins in a person’s defiance. Status seeking and competitiveness involving going around the state and finding new alternative authorities fuels dismissive defiance.

41. Impact on Governance: Dismissive Defiance Dismissive defiance involves competition to beat the system – it is strategic, non-responsive to integrity interventions and leads to law breaking. Dismissive defiance threatens government authorities and can become organized around alternative authorities. Agencies can improve their institutional integrity, but this may not contain dismissive defiance. Power sharing may be the only option for dismissive defiance.

42. Disillusionment with Democracy Values (seeking status, harmony)

43. Disillusionment with Democracy Values (seeking status, harmony) Coping Styles (thinking morally, feeling oppressed) Perceived Deterrence

44. Disillusionment with Democracy Values (seeking status, harmony) Social Modelling (bending rules, winning) Coping Styles (thinking morally, feeling oppressed) Perceived Deterrence

45. Disillusionment with Democracy Values (seeking status, harmony) Social Modelling (bending rules, winning) Coping Styles (thinking morally, feeling oppressed) Defiance (resistance, dismissiveness) Perceived Deterrence

46. Perceived Institutional Integrity Disillusionment with Democracy Trust Values (seeking status, harmony) Social Modelling (bending rules, winning) Coping Styles (thinking morally, feeling oppressed) Defiance (resistance, dismissiveness) Perceived Deterrence

47. Trust in Institutions

48. 48 Freemarket 38 40 85 Tax HFHE (L) 2005 Disillusionment 87 Hope 2003 Tax CHFAS 2000 86 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent agree or strongly agree A comparison of levels of disillusionment with Australian democracy and support for small government and free markets 2000 - 2005

49. Hope is a process of … identifying goals having capacity to achieve the goals having institutional pathways for the realization of the goals

50. Private Hope = Hopes that individuals have for themselves Collective Hope = Hopes that individuals have for their community or nation Public Hope = creation of feel-good community sentiments by spin, marketing