How procedural experiences shape citizens' perceptions of and orientations toward legal institutions: evidence from a household survey in Bangladesh
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852318768097 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Shahidul Hassan,Kim A. Young |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
How procedural
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(2) 278–294
!
experiences shape
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
citizens’ perceptions of
DOI: 10.1177/0020852318768097
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
and orientations toward
legal institutions:
evidence from a
household survey
in Bangladesh
Kim A. Young and Shahidul Hassan
The Ohio State University, USA
Abstract
Integrating theories and research on procedural justice and policy design, this article
provides insight about how institutional context and experiences shape citizens’
perceptions about procedural fairness and trust and confidence in legal institutions.
We address this question with data collected through a household survey in
Bangladesh. The analysis shows that citizens’ experiences with legal institutions vary
across four separate justice venues. We find that openness of decision processes,
perceived competency of the decision maker, and whether citizens needed to pay a
bribe to obtain legal service affect procedural fairness perceptions. Moreover, the
results show that perceptions of procedural fairness relate positively with citizens’
willingness to return to that justice institution but not with complying with authorities.
Implications for research on effective governance are discussed.
Corresponding author:
Shahidul Hassan, The Ohio State University, 1810 College Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Email: hassan.125@osu.edu
Young and Hassan
279
Points for practitioners
We examined how institutional characteristics shape citizens’ perceptions of legal
institutions in Bangladesh. The results direct attention to the importance of the
decision makers’ legal and social competence and clarification efforts. Most prior
procedural justice research has focused on the influence of voice. When examined
alongside other characteristics, we found that voice was least influential. Competence
of decision makers was strongest, with legal proficiency valued most. Citizen
perception of procedural fairness influenced trust in the institution but compliance
with legal decisions was motivated by outcome fairness. Governance improvements
may be achieved by strengthening the legal and cultural competence of decision makers.
Keywords
Bangladesh, legal institutions, policy design, procedural fairness
Many of the pressing problems that developing countries face today are due to
weak institutions. That quality of institutions matter for increasing economic
growth, improving public health and literacy at the national level and citizen
well-being at the individual level are well documented. But a more intriguing ques-
tion, ‘Why some institutions are perceived to be more effective than others’, has
remained relatively unexplored. The dearth of research on the effectiveness of
institutions is due to the slow progress in identifying specific criteria for assessing
quality of governance processes. Rothstein and Teorell (2008), in a review of the
literature, note that the extant definitions of ‘good governance’ are vague, too
broad, and have a narrow functionalist stance. There is also no clear consensus
on what actually constitutes ‘good governance’. In an effort to remedy this issue
and move the research forward, they (2008: 165) propose a normative criterion,
impartiality or fairness of institutions that exercise public authority. They argue
that because fairness is a universal value, it should be the primary criterion for
assessing quality of governance in a society.
While fairness is a fundamental issue to the concept of bureaucracy (Weber,
1922), it has received limited attention in research in public administration, partic-
ularly in the context of citizen–government interactions (Van Ryzin, 2011).
The topic, however, has received considerable attention in research in social psy-
chology (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Yet, much of this research focuses on the influence
of voice and respect on citizens’ procedural fairness perceptions. There are few
studies on how institutional factors (transparency of decision processes and com-
petence and neutrality of decision makers) affect citizens’ perceptions of procedur-
al fairness and to what extent such perceptions shape their orientations and beliefs
about government.
Our research examines how procedural experiences affect citizens’ perceptions
of fairness of legal institutions in Bangladesh. We contribute to research by
280
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(2)
assessing how citizens’ perceptions of procedural fairness depend, beyond voice
opportunity, on the openness of processes, decision makers’ competence, and
whether citizens need to pay a bribe while accessing legal services. Additionally,
following research on policy design (Bruch et al., 2010; Heinrich, 2016; Moynihan
et al., 2015; Moynihan and Soss, 2014; Soss, 1999), we explore how citizens’
procedural experiences vary across justice institutions: village courts, local govern-
ments, law enforcement, and formal courts. We also assess the extent to which
procedural fairness affects citizens’ compliance with decisions of legal authorities
and willingness to return to the justice institution, factors that are critical to the
effectiveness and legitimacy of legal institutions in any cultural context.
Overview of literature
There is a sizeable literature that examines the implications of procedural fairness
when citizens interact with legal and bureaucratic authorities (for a review, see
Tyler, 2006). This research shows that people distinguish between fair outcomes
and fair processes and care about how the decision is made even when they receive
a favorable outcome. Perceptions of procedural fairness have been found to have
a stronger influence on people’s cooperative attitudes than perceptions of distrib-
utive and substantive fairness.
The criteria that people rely on to evaluate fairness of decision procedures have
also been studied. Research shows that people view procedures as fair when they
are afforded the opportunity to present their case or express concerns, and when
treated with dignity and respect by the decision maker (Tyler, 2006). There is
evidence that people are more attentive to these interpersonal factors than they
are to the substantive aspects of the decision process, such as whether the evidence
is applied consistently against a set of rules (Lens, 2009; Tyler and Huo, 2002).
Moreover, people often equate procedural fairness with the opportunity to voice
concerns and with the civility of the decision maker. As noted in Lens’ (2009: 830)
study of administrative hearing procedures for a welfare program, fairness is being
‘given the opportunity to say what I have to say and replying to me a in a decent
manner and treating me as a human being.’
There are several perspectives on why perceptions of voice and respect strongly
affect people’s judgments of procedural fairness. One view is that people’s inter-
actions with authorities are shaped by a desire to gain benefits and that the voice
provision gives people some indirect control over the procedure and the outcome
(Lind and Tyler, 1988). Another perspective is that, because ceding control to
another person creates an opportunity for exploitation, people feel uneasy in
their interactions with authorities and look for cues about whether the authority
can be trusted to not exploit them. The opportunity to ask questions and raise
concerns reduces this uncertainty, which, in turn, leads people to view the decision
maker as trustworthy and the procedure as fair (Lind and Tyler, 1988).
Civility of the decision maker affects perceptions of procedural fairness because
the decision maker’s behavior provides important identity-relevant information to
Young and Hassan
281
people about their standing in the community that the decision maker represents
(Tyler and Huo, 2002). Specifically, when the decision maker is respectful, it
signifies high social worth and sends a positive signal to people about their
value in society. In contrast, when the decision maker is rude or abrupt, people
perceive that they are marginal or excluded, leading them to infer that the legal
processes and system are unfair (Tyler and Huo, 2002).
Another highly relevant body of work is the literature on policy design that
provides important insight into how citizens form perceptions of government
(Bruch et al., 2010; Moynihan et al., 2015; Soss, 1999). Schneider and Ingram
(1997) suggest that policy design choices have broader ramifications than just
attaining particular policy goals. While citizens interact with government officials,
the institutional arrangements and practices shape their personal experiences with
the state. These experiences have spillover effects on their attitudes about govern-
ment, beliefs about social exclusion, and their civic engagement. Similarly, Soss
et al. (2011: 284) note that citizens interact with government on issues that are very
important to them and these encounters teach citizens important lessons about
‘their rights and obligations, power and authority and civic standing’. When these
experiences exemplify values of social justice and convey respect, citizens are more
likely to have confidence and engage in the governance processes (Moynihan and
Soss, 2014).
Similar to the findings of procedural justice research, studies on policy design
show that, while evaluating their interactions with frontline agencies, citizens focus
on the accessibility of officials and procedures, whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial