Motivating Compliance: Economic and Material Motives for Compliance

Simpson, Sally S.; Rorie, Melissa

doi:10.4337/9780857938732.00008

Cited by 17 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The crucial finding in our sample is that both embarassment if relevant others learn about noncompliance and the acceptance of rules foster compliant behavior. This result can be interpreted as being in line with findings by Simpson and Rorie (), who stated that managers care more about informal sanctions due to the discovery of illegal behavior by relevant others (including family or peers) than about formal sanctions by authorities. The regulator might use two strategies (or a combination of both): stressing monetary consequences due to penalty points and steering individual's behavior by addressing nonmonetary goals.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Compliance with Food Safety Laws in Germany: Food Businesses in Berlin

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we explore how variables associated both with material temptations (economic incentives that foster rule breaking) and nonmaterial behavioral determinants (protective factors that shield people from rule breaking) are linked to compliance with food laws. The object of the study is to examine food businesses in the ready‐to‐eat industry in three districts of the German capital, Berlin. We collected data on compliance behavior and its potential drivers via an anonymous postal survey in 2014. Accounting for the data structure, we used a generalized ordered logit regression to model the relationship between the presumed behavioral drivers and compliance. One crucial finding is that a feeling of embarrassment if relevant others were to learn about noncompliance is positively related to compliance. The same holds for the internalized approval of food laws and their enforcement (acceptance of rules).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Compliance with Food Safety Laws in Germany: Food Businesses in Berlin

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, there are ample explorations of compliance motivations for firms (cf. Simpson & Rorie, ; Tyler, ). But, we contend (as do others; cf.…”

Section: The Front Lines Of Environmental Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Front Lines of Implementing Environmental Regulation: The Perspective of the Regulated Community in Montana

Rinfret

Pautz

2018

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although discussions about environmental policy often focus on the federal level of decision making and action in the United States, implementation occurs predominately at the state level. The individuals largely responsible for implementation are the state regulators and members of the regulated community as they constitute the front lines in environmental regulation. Much of the existing research on regulatory interactions investigates the regulatory enforcement styles of regulators and the compliance motivations of firms. It is equally important to consider the perceptions and actual experiences of regulated community members. To examine this perspective, this exploratory study utilizes a mail survey to investigate the perceptions and experiences of members of the regulated community in Montana. The survey respondents report positive and cooperative interactions with environmental regulators. This survey provides much‐needed insight into the perspectives of some members of the regulated community, challenging traditional viewpoints that the regulated community is hostile toward regulation, and promotes adversarial relationships with regulators. Accordingly, this research encourages debate about the fundamental assumptions surrounding the interactions of regulators and the regulated community in U.S. environmental policy.

show abstract

“…In this study, we follow three approaches as part of this original cost‐benefit approach. First, while many cost‐benefit studies of compliance continue to focus on the eventual costs of violating the law by studying deterrence (i.e., Parker and Nielsen ; Gunningham, Thornton, and Kagan ), some scholars also analyze the immediate operational costs and benefits of both violation and compliance as they occur within everyday business practices (Nielsen and Parker ; Simpson and Rorie ; Winter and May ; Paternoster and Simpson , ). In the case of pesticide compliance, deterrence costs arise from the risk of getting caught and punished for violations, while operational costs and benefits relate to the costs of pesticides and their usage, as well as the effect they have on agricultural yield and income.…”

Section: Approach and Operationalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, studies of compliance increasingly take a subjective approach to costs and benefits, including how regulated actors perceive certainty, celerity, and severity of sanctions (Nagin ; Thornton, Gunningham, and Kagan ; Decker, Wright, and Logie ; Paternoster et al. ), as well as how they view other types of costs and benefits (Simpson and Rorie ; Winter and May ; Paternoster and Simpson , ). The subjective approach allows for an inductive understanding of how the studied actors see these costs and benefits, which is in the end what shapes their compliance decision making.…”

Section: Approach and Operationalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, what is the variation in how these farmers perceive such costs and benefits? Building on the rich rational choice literature on compliance (i.e., Simpson and Rorie ; Thornton, Gunningham, and Kagan ; Winter and May ; Paternoster and Simpson , ), it approaches cost‐and‐benefit decision making by studying both the perceived operational costs and benefits of using pesticides in a compliant or violating manner, as well as the perceived risks of being caught and punished for violations (subjective deterrence). The study explores these perceptions in a qualitative and inductive way, seeking to understand how the farmers understand both operational costs and benefits and deterrence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation