Values, Hope and Defiance

1. Values, Hope and Defiance Valerie Braithwaite Regulatory Institutions Network Australian National University Second International Conference on Evidence Based Policing, 1-3 July 2009, University of Cambridge

2. Rand Corporation (2008)How Terrorist Groups Fail Political processes and local law enforcement efforts bring terrorist groups to an end – need to build networks of community support David Kilcullen (2009)The Accidental Guerrilla Groups with local and legitimate grievances are not distinguished from groups that are part of a global terrorist network Local people support insurgents not for ideological reasons, but because they feel threatened by the West

3. Why is it so hard work to build networks of community support ? Government and its agencies have struggled with …  Loss of legitimacy  Loss of cooperation  Lower compliance

4. Outline of presentation What do government agencies have going for them – The Glass Half Full What do government agencies have going against them – The Glass Half Empty The process of learning a new way forward – Another Glass Please Data are drawn from national random surveys of the Australian population between 2000 and 2005 on the quality of governance, hopes for the democracy and support for the tax system

5. The Glass Half Full Values Trust norms Hopes for the democracy Identification with the democracy

6. Values are … States of doing and being that represent our ideals They are desirable for their own sake They apply regardless of circumstances (Scott 1965) Others ought to support them as we do (Scott 1965) Their presence is preferable to their absence (Rokeach 1973)

7. Values can be defined as personal or social goals or standards of behaviour that capture our shared sense of the desirable across place and time. Two dimensions of human valuing: Security value orientation Harmony value orientation

8. Consensus and change in harmony values across three Australian cross-sectional general population surveys (1975, 1995, 2005)

9. Consensus and change in security values across three Australian cross-sectional general population surveys (1975, 1995, 2005)

10. Trust norms are … The basis on which we gauge trustworthiness The basis for knowing what to do to be trustworthy Accepted standards that we share and discuss A back-up plan for restoring trust when trust breaks down

11. Trust norms are sets of shared beliefs that specify criteria for being considered trustworthy. Two dimensions of trust norms: Exchange trust norms (related to security values) Communal trust norms (related to harmony values)

12. What does the Australian Government have to do to win the trust of the public? Data from an Australian random population sample in 2005 (N=3558)

13. Hopes for the democracy Support for a more caring society 90% - 91% Identification Think about yourself as a member of the Australian community. How important is it to you and how proud does it make you feel?87% - 94%

14. Glass Half Empty Alienation from institutions Low trust in institutions Failure to link policy attitudes to values Institutional obstruction for private hope and collective hope

15. Alienation from Institutions

16. Trust in Institutions

17. Attitude-Value Linkages Governments politicise issues and party identification shapes attitudes to policy. When issues are not politicised, people think about how policy advances their values.

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

19. Private Hope Personal goals – social and economic status values; aspirations for family, a home and a good job Personal efficacy – sense of mastery; readiness to compete and win Institutional pathways – access to means for income generation, working long hours, financial planning and investment

20. Findings for Private Hope Valuing social and economic status was associated with approaching life as a competition, always wanting to be a winner (r = .41) Aspiration for family, a home and a good job was associated with working long hours (r = .50) but also with struggling economically (r = .33) Personal efficacy was high for those who were able to invest (r = .22) and low for those struggling economically (r = -.30) Who waiver on moral obligation, being honest and law abiding? Those who are competitive (r = -.15) and who held aspirations for a family, a home and a good job (r = -.14)

21. Conclusion on Private Hope In pursuit of private hope, individuals were ready to compete by using illegitimate means to achieve socially desired goals (Merton 1968)

22. Collective Hope Social goals – security and harmony values, government policy objectives for development and redistribution Political efficacy – feeling a valued part of the democracy Institutional pathways – trust and trust norms

23. Findings on Collective Hope Social goals and values are shared – people who value one set of goals and values tend to value others The corollary is that there is a segment of the population that doesn’t care too much about social goals and values. Some tensions among goals form along political lines – prioritising free markets means a lower priority on anti-poverty programs (r = -.30) and regulation of the private sector (r = -.14).

24. Political efficacy is higher for those prioritising free markets (r = -.33) and lower for those looking to government to reduce poverty (r = .32) and regulate the private sector (r = .33). Trust in government is higher for those prioritising free markets (r = .41) and lower for those looking to government to reduce poverty (r = -.33) and regulate the private sector (r = -.21). Belief in trust norms is higher for those who did not trust government (r = -.13), who were disillusioned and lacked political efficacy (r = .29) and who subscribed to social goals of all kinds (with the exception of prioritising free markets).

25. Who waiver on moral obligation, being honest and law abiding? Those who do not subscribe to shared social values for harmony (r = .30) and security (r = .37), who oppose regulating the private sector (r = .16) and who do not subscribe to trust norms (r = .24).

26. Conclusion on Collective Hope In pursuit of collective hope, individuals have a healthy culture of sharing and supporting each other through shared values and moral obligation to be a good citizen. Yet a significant segment of the population have distanced themselves from government. Those who believe government should be more caring and supportive of citizens are disillusioned; they lack a sense of political efficacy and do not trust government as an institution that will help them realise their collective hope.

27. Another Glass Please Could it be that governments have inadvertently created defiance problems of different kinds and worsened their own prospects for effective governance in the process? A segment of those with collective hope are withdrawing from government, albeit not breaking the law. A segment of those with private hope are prepared to break the law in the competition for resources to realize their aspirations. Both are expressing defiance.

28. Defiance is … a signal that individuals express attitudinally or behaviourally toward an authority (and share with others) that communicates unwillingness to follow the authority’s prescribed path without question or protest.

29. Two types of defiance: 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”

30. Theoretical propositions on defiance from 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 – “I am a good person and the authority should recognize this.” A status seeking self – “I have hopes of success and authority should not block my path.” A democrative collective self – “I am a good citizen and the authority should treat me and other citizens as valued participants of the democracy.”

31. 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.

32. Question: Is resistant defiance related to collective hope? The answer is yes. In a regression analysis, frustrated collective hope explained 33% of the variance in resistance with the strongest contributors being disillusionment with the democracy and lack of trust in government. Moral obligation explained an additional 4% of variance, reining in resistant defiance.

33. 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.

34. Question: Is dismissive defiance related to private hope? The answer is yes. In a regression analysis, private hope explained 9% of the variance in dismissiveness with the strongest contributors being competitiveness and wanting to be a winner and not having the resources to do it. Moral obligation explained an additional 17% of variance, reining in dismissive defiance.

35. 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.

36. Impact on Governance: Dismissive Defiance Dismissive defiance involves a 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 with its own ideology and resolve to defeat the system. Agencies can improve their institutional integrity, but this may not contain dismissive defiance. Power sharing may be the only option for dismissive defiance.

37. How do we differentiate resistant and dismissive defiance ? Values Based Dialogue Restorative Justice Conferencing Deliberative Democracy Workshops