Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Wheeling and dealing behind closed doors: estimating the causal effect of transparency on policy evaluations using a survey experiment

  • Sebastian Juhl (a1) and David Hilpert (a1)
Abstract

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the US is highly technical. Still, the negotiations triggered large-scale protests among citizens with very diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Why has a complex issue such an enormous mobilizing effect although the economic consequences are either unclear or favorable for the participating economies? We argue that the transparency of negotiations is an important consideration for people evaluating the negotiation outcome. Conducting a survey experiment, we show that non-transparent decision-making decreases citizens' appraisal of the agreement independent of its outcome: A non-transparent negotiation is, on average, almost 16 percent less likely to find public approval than a transparent but otherwise identical agreement. Our findings have important implications for democratic decision-making.

Copyright
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Aichele, R, Felbermayr, GJ and Heiland, I (2014) Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5150. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2550180.
Alt, JE and Lassen, DD (2006) Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science 50, 530550.
Atzmüller, C and Steiner, PM (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology 6, 128138.
Bartels, LM (1996) Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40, 194230.
Bauhr, M and Grimes, M (2014) Indignation or resignation: the implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance 27, 291320.
BBC (2015) Ttip talks: transparency call for EU-US trade disputes. BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33422086.
Bechtel, MM, Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D and Helbling, M (2015) Reality bites: the limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 683695.
Berelson, BR, Lazarsfeld, PF and McPhee, WN (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernauer, T and Gampfer, R (2013) Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change 23, 439449.
Besley, T and Burgess, R (2002) The political economy of government responsiveness: theory and evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117, 14151451.
Blinder, AS, Ehrmann, M, Fratzscher, M, De Haan, J and Jansen, D-J (2008) Central bank communication and monetary policy: a survey of theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature 46, 910–45.
Blom, AG, Gathmann, C and Krieger, U (2015) Setting up an online panel representative of the general population: the German internet panel. Field Methods 27, 391408.
Blom, AG, Felderer, B, Herzing, J, Krieger, U, Rettig, T and SFB 884 Political Economy of Reforms, University of Mannheim (2018) German Internet Panel, Wave 30 (July 2017). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6904 Data file Version 2.0.0. https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=6904&db=e&doi=10.4232/1.13153.
Boeri, T and Tabellini, G (2012) Does information increase political support for pension reform? Public Choice 150, 327362.
Cook, FL, Jacobs, LR and Kim, D (2010) Trusting what you know: information, knowledge, and confidence in social security. The Journal of Politics 72, 397412.
de Fine Licht, J (2014) Transparency actually: how transparency affects public perceptions of political decision-making. European Political Science Review 6, 309330.
de Fine Licht, J, Naurin, D, Esaiasson, P and Gilljam, M (2014) When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance 27, 111134.
Devuyst, Y (2013) European Union law and practice in the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements. Journal of International Business and Law 12, 259316.
Di Lonardo, L (2017) The partisan politics of counterterrorism: reputations, policy transparency, and electoral outcomes. Political Science Research and Methods 117 (doi: 10.1017/psrm.2017.19).
Dickson, ES, Hafer, C and Landa, D (2015) Learning from debate: institutions and information. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 449472.
Economist (2016) Trading places. What the aversion to global trade says about Europe and America. The Economist, https://www.economist.com/europe/2016/04/28/trading-places.
Egger, P, Francois, J, Manchin, M and Nelson, D (2015) Non-tariff barriers, integration and the transatlantic economy. Economic Policy 30, 539584.
European Commission (2015) European commission publishes TTIP legal texts as part of transparency initiative. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1231.
Fehrler, S and Hughes, N (2018) How transparency kills information aggregation: theory and experiment. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 10, 181209.
Felbermayr, GJ, Heid, B, Larch, M and Yalcin, E (2015) Macroeconomic potentials of transatlantic free trade: a high resolution perspective for Europe and the world. Economic Policy 30, 491537.
Ferraz, C and Finan, F (2008) Exposing corrupt politicians: the effects of Brazil's publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123, 703745.
Francois, J, Manchin, M, Norberg, H, Pindyuk, O and Tomberger, P (2013) Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment. Final Project Report. London: Institute for International and Development Economics.
Freedman, DA (2008) Randomization does not justify logistic regression. Statistical Science 23, 237249.
Grimmelikhuijsen, SG and Meijer, AJ (2015) Does twitter increase perceived police legitimacy? Public Administration Review 75, 598607.
Hagemann, S and Franchino, F (2016) Transparency vs efficiency? A study of negotiations in the Council of the European Union. European Union Politics 17, 408428.
Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D and Yamamoto, T (2015) Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 23952400.
Hansen, S, McMahon, M and Prat, A (2017) Transparency and deliberation within the fomc: a computational linguistics approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, 801870.
Holmström, B (1979) Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics 10, 7491.
Horiuchi, Y, Imai, K and Taniguchi, N (2007) Designing and analyzing randomized experiments: application to a Japanese election survey experiment. American Journal of Political Science 51, 669687.
Horvath, R and Katuscakova, D (2016) Transparency and trust: the case of the European central bank. Applied Economics 48, 56255638.
Krosnick, JA and Alwin, DF (1987) An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. The Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 201219.
Manin, B, Przeworski, A and Stokes, SC (1999) Elections and representation. In Przeworski, A, Stokes, SC and Manin, B (eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2954.
Mayda, AM and Rodrik, D (2005) Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others? European Economic Review 49, 13931430.
McCubbins, MD, Noll, RG and Weingast, BR (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3, 243277.
Meade, EE and Stasavage, D (2008) Publicity of debate and the incentive to dissent: evidence from the US federal reserve. The Economic Journal 118, 695717.
Naurin, D (2007) Deliberation Behind Closed Doors: Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union. Colchester: ECPR press.
Porumbescu, G, Bellé, N, Cucciniello, M and Nasi, G (2017) Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration 95, 9901008.
Prat, A (2005) The wrong kind of transparency. American Economic Review 95, 862877.
Putnam, RD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization 42, 427460.
Ripken, SK (2006) The dangers and drawbacks of the disclosure antidote: toward a more substantive approach to securities regulation. Baylor Law Review 58, 139.
Scheve, KF and Slaughter, MJ (2001) Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics 83, 133145.
Schoonvelde, M (2014) Media freedom and the institutional underpinnings of political knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods 2, 163178.
Stasavage, D (2003) Transparency, democratic accountability, and the economic consequences of monetary institutions. American Journal of Political Science 47, 389402.
Stasavage, D (2004) Open-door or closed-door? Transparency in domestic and international bargaining. International Organization 58, 667703.
Stasavage, D (2007) Polarization and publicity: rethinking the benefits of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Politics 69, 5972.
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453458.
Van den Putte, L, De Ville, F and Orbie, J (2014) The European Parliament’s New Role in Trade Policy: Turning Power into Impact. CEPS Special Report No. 89, 21 May 2014.
Van den Putte, L, De Ville, F and Orbie, J (2015) The European parliament as an international actor in trade: From power to impact. In Stavridis, S and Irrera, D (eds.), The European Parliament and its International Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 5269.
Woolcock, S (2010) EU trade and investment policymaking after the Lisbon treaty. Intereconomics 45, 2225.
Zeit (2016) Abgeordnete erhalten Einsicht in TTIP-Dokumente. http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-01/ttip-verhandlungen-dokumente-einsicht.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Science Research and Methods
  • ISSN: 2049-8470
  • EISSN: 2049-8489
  • URL: /core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Juhl and Hilpert supplementary material
Juhl and Hilpert supplementary material 1

 PDF (153 KB)
153 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed