One of the key factors distinguishing democracies from non-democracies is the process by which political decisions are made. Central to democratic thought is the idea that policy made in a procedurally fair manner is more legitimate than policy that violates central tenets of procedural fairness. A large number of studies from social psychology show that procedural fairness matters in citizens’ evaluations of the success and legitimacy of various outcomes. Despite this observation, most political science literature focuses on the outcomes rather than the process of policy-making. Using survey experiments we find that procedural arrangements are an important factor in citizens’ judgement of policy outcomes. Specifically, we find that fair procedural arrangements increase outcome legitimacy to the extent that citizens perceive them to be fairer. Our findings suggest that policy-makers need to pay more attention to procedural arrangements when designing policies.
AchenChristopherBartelsLarry (2015) Democracy for Realists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
ArnesenSveinung (2017) Legitimacy from Decision-Making in Influence and Outcome Favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies65(1 Suppl): 146–161.
3.
ArnesenSveinungBroderstadTroy SJohannessonMikael PLindeJonas (2019) Conditional Legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums. European Union Politics20(2): 176–197.
4.
BaumanChristopher WSkitkaLinda J (2009) Moral Disagreement and Procedural Justice: Moral mandates and mandates as constraints to voice effects. Australian Journal of Psychology61(1): 40–49.
5.
BrocknerJoelWiesenfeldBatia M (2005) How, When and Why Does Outcome Favourability Interact with Procedural Fairness? In GreenbergJeraldColquittJason A (eds) Handbook of Organisation Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 525–548.
6.
DaltonRussell (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
DreyerStacia JWalkerIain (2013) Acceptance and Support of the Australian Carbon Policy. Social Justice Research26(3): 343–362.
8.
EastonDavid (1975) A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
9.
EsaiassonPeterGilljamMikaelPerssonMikaelLindholmTorun (2019) Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49(1): 291–314.
10.
FaulknerNicholasJorgensenBradley SSampsonJacquiGhafooriErai (2018) Improving Compliance with Medical Fitness to Drive Reviews: The role of behaviourally-optimised letters. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour55: 1–8.
11.
FolgerRobertGreenbergJerald (1985) Procedural Justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In RowlandKendrithFenisGerald (eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 3: 141–183.
12.
GreenbergJerald (1986) Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology71(2): 340–342.
13.
HayesAndrew FCaiLi (2007) Using heteroscedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods39: 709–722.
14.
HayesAndrew F (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression based Approach (2nd edn). New York: The Guilford Press.
15.
HerianMitchel NHammJoseph ATomkinsAlan JZilligLisa M Pytlik (2012) Public Participation, Procedural Fairness, and Evaluations of Local Governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(4): 815–840.
16.
HetheringtonMarc JRudolphThomas J (2015) Why Washington Won’t Work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
HibbingJohn RTheiss-MorseElisabeth (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
JossSimonBrownleaArthur (1999) Considering the Concept of Procedural Justice for Public Policy and Decision-Making in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy26(5): 321–330.
19.
LeungKwokTongKwok-KitLindAllan (2007) Realpolitik Versus Fair Process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology92(3): 476–489.
20.
LindAllan ETylerTom R (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Springer.
21.
McAllisterIan (2014) Corruption and Confidence in Australian Political Institutions. Australian Journal of Political Science49(2): 174–185.
22.
MagalhãesPedro C (2017) Economic Outcomes, Quality of Governance, and Satisfaction with Democracy. In van HamCarolienThomassenJacquesAartsKeesAndewegRudy (eds) Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156–171.
23.
MagalhãesPedro CAguiar-ConrariaLuis (2019) Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities. Political Psychology40(1): 165–181.
24.
MarienSofieKernAnna (2018) The Winner Takes It All: Revisiting the effect of direct democracy on citizens’ political support. Political Behavior40(4): 857–882.
25.
MazerolleLorraineBennettSarahAntrobusEmmaEgginsElizabeth (2012) Procedural Justice, Routine Encounters and Citizen Perceptions of Police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology8(4): 343–367.
NorrisPippa (2019) Do Perceptions of Electoral Malpractice Undermine Democratic Satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review40(1): 5–22.
28.
RothsteinBo (2009) Creating Political Legitimacy: Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government. American Behavioral Scientist53(3): 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338795
29.
ScharpfFritz W (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
SeligsonMitchell (2002) The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics64(2): 408–433.
31.
SondakHarrisTylerTom R (2007) How Does Procedural Justice Shape the Desirability of Markets?Journal of Economic Psychology28(1): 79–92.
32.
StockemerDanielLaMontagneBernadetteScruggsLyle (2013) Bribes and Ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies. International Political Science Review34(1): 74–90.
33.
StrebelMichael AKublerDanielMarcinkowskiFrank (2019) The Importance of Input and Output Legitimacy in Democratic Governance: Evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries. European Journal of Political Research58(2): 488–513.
34.
ThibautJohnWalkerLaurence (1978) A Theory of Procedure. California Tax Review66(3): 541–566.
35.
ThibautJohn WWalkerLaurence (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
36.
TusalemRollin F (2016) Political and Economic Accountability in a Delegative Democracy. International Political Science Review37(4): 517–532.
37.
TylerTom R (1998) Trust and Democratic Government. In BraithwaiteValerieLeviMargaret (eds) Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 269–294.
38.
TylerTom R (2006) Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology57(1): 375–400.
39.
TylerTom RCaineAndrew (1981) The Influence of Outcomes and Procedures on Satisfaction with Formal Leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41(4): 642–655.
40.
VisschersVivianne HMSiegristMichael (2012) Fair Play in Energy Policy Decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy46: 292–300.
41.
WangChin-ShouKurzmanCharles (2007) Dilemmas of Electoral Clientelism: Taiwan, 1993. International Political Science Review28(2): 225–245.
42.
WenzelMichael (2006) A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance effects of informational and interpersonal justice. Social Justice Research19(3): 345–364.
43.
WintersMatthew SWeitz-ShapiroRebecca (2013) Lacking Information or Condoning Corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics45(4): 418–436.
44.
WongMatthew Y (2017) Public Spending, Corruption, and Income Inequality: A comparative analysis of Asia and Latin America. International Political Science Review38(3): 298–315.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
