IF THEY GET IT RIGHT: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF THE APPOINTMENT AND REPORTS OF UK PUBLIC INQUIRIES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00605.x |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| Author | RAANAN SULITZEANU‐KENAN |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (623–653)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
IF THEY GET IT RIGHT: AN EXPERIMENTAL
TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF THE APPOINTMENT
AND REPORTS OF UK PUBLIC INQUIRIES
RAANAN SULITZEANU-KENAN
A number of arguments regarding the politics of UK public inquiries (PIs) suggest
that the appointment of a public inquiry and its subsequent report affect public
responsibility attributions in ways that could be benefi cial to the appointing offi ce
holder. One claim refers to the effect of an appointment on responsibility attribution
towards the appointer of a PI; another refers to the relative strength of the effects of
PI reports on responsibility attributions compared with other public evaluations. This
latter argument relies on the assumption that PIs are judged as more credible than
other conveyors of public evaluations. To test these hypotheses, this research employs
two web-based experiments involving a sample of 474 UK citizens. The fi ndings do
not support the hypotheses. Instead, they reveal that the credibility of PIs is condi-
tional upon acceptability of the report content.
INTRODUCTION
Following a policy failure which raises public concern, will the appointment
of a public inquiry reduce the responsibility attributed to the appointing
government minister? In terms of credibility, does a public inquiry report
enjoy more credibility than political speeches? Does it affect public opinion
more than textually equivalent political speeches? Given that so many pub-
lic inquiries are labelled as ‘ whitewash ’ by the general public, how is it that
these ad hoc institutions are sought by the public, almost refl exively, in the
aftermath of adverse events? This study presents empirical answers to the
fi rst three questions and relies on the fi ndings and on the case of the Hutton
Inquiry, appointed in July 2003 into the circumstances surrounding the death
of Dr David Kelly, a scientist employed as an advisor by the Ministry of
Defence, to suggest an answer to the fourth.
Public inquiries may come into existence in the aftermath of negative
events such as disasters, accidents, policy failures and scandals. In the UK,
the decision of whether to have a public inquiry (PI) in the wake of such an
event typically lies in the hands either of individual ministers or the govern-
ment collectively. A number of explanations account for the employment of
these ad hoc institutions. These explanations rely on certain empirical as-
sumptions regarding public perceptions of these bodies and public reactions
to their outputs – in particular, the credibility attributed to them by the
public and the relative infl uence of their reports on public opinion. However,
Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan is a DPhil candidate in politics at Wolfson College, Oxford University.
624 RAANAN SULITZEANU-KENAN
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (623–653)
none of these assumptions have yet been tested. This study presents the
results of such experimental testing.
The term ‘ public inquiry ’ (PI) is a loose one (Public Administration Select
Committee (PASC) 2005, p. 7), often used to denote different types of institu-
tions and functions. Important distinctions can be made, for example,
between planning, advising and investigating PIs. The following criteria will
be used to defi ne PIs in the context of this study:
1 . A n ad hoc institution: that is, one established for a particular task; once
its primary task is concluded, the tribunal is dissolved;
2. Formally external to the executive;
3. Established by the government or a minister;
4. As a result of the appointer ’ s discretion: that is, not the result of a
requirement prescribed by any statute or other rule;
5. For the main task of investigation: a criterion used to distinguish
between investigative and advisory functions (Weare 1955, pp. 43 – 4);
6. Of past event(s);
7. In a public way: that is, it is not only directed inward (to the appointing
body) but also outward , to the public, typically during a crisis of confi -
dence between the public and government ( Wade and Forsyth 1994 ,
p. 1007), in a way which allows exposure of relevant facts to public
scrutiny ( Clarke 2000 , p. 8).
PIs that qualify for the above criteria come into existence in a variety of
circumstances and they range from fairly routine investigations of specifi c
types of misfortunes to unique and extreme disasters as well as fi ascoes. Much
like the recent UK Public Administration Select Committee ’ s (PASC) Report
(2005, p. 7), this study focuses on those PIs set up to investigate specifi c
controversial events that have given rise to public concern. However, more
selectively, this study concentrates on the particular cases in which the offi ce
holder, with the power to decide whether to set up a PI or not, is themselves
included in the group of those potentially responsible for the negative event
to be investigated. Such a condition excludes from the analysis PIs into
‘ historical events ’ , that is, events which occurred under a previous government
unless some implications of the affair – for example, participation in an ongoing
cover-up – raises concern regarding the responsibility of current offi ce holders.
Examples of such cases are the second inquiry into ‘ Bloody Sunday ’ (set up in
1998 by the Blair Government into the events on Sunday 30 January 1972 dur-
ing the Conservative Heath Government) or the inquiry into the Marchioness
disaster (set up in 2000 by the New Labour Blair Government into the events
of August 1989 during the Conservative Thatcher Government). However,
more selectively, this study concentrates on the particular cases in which the
offi ce holders, with the power to decide whether to set up a PI or not, are
themselves included in the group of those potentially responsible for the neg-
ative event to be investigated. The remaining set of cases includes PIs that
conform to the above criteria and are not ‘ historical ’ , for example, the 1936
To continue reading
Request your trial