Importance Of Procedural Fairness Research Articles

Community social capital, police performance, and trust in the police: Choices of policing styles in China

Abstract Recent empirical studies have underscored the crucial link between police performance and trust in the police. Nevertheless, the association between police performance and trust in the police under various conditions deserves more attention. Moreover, the collective meaning of social capital is largely omitted from previous studies on the impact of social capital on trust in the police. The current study explores how police performance impacts public trust across varying levels of community social capital. Using factor analysis and multilevel binary logistic regression on data from a survey of 997 respondents in Xiamen, China, the current study found that both police performance and community social capital significantly enhanced trust in the police, while community social capital moderated the relationship between police performance and trust in the police. As community social capital increases, the importance of procedural fairness in building police trust grows, whereas the impact of outcome effectiveness diminishes. Findings of the current study advocate for a tailored approach to policing: communities rich in social capital benefit from a focus on procedural fairness (process-oriented policing), whereas those with lower social capital prioritize the effectiveness of outcomes (outcome-oriented policing).

Policymakers' perspective onthe importance ofprocedural fairness to implement andsustain health financing reforms.

Fair process is instrumental to implementing and sustaining health financing reforms. Ensuring a fair process during the design and adoption phases can garner political capital and secure a sense of citizens' ownership. This will prove useful when reforms are contested before benefits are yet to be fully materialized. Since many well devised health financing reforms are vulnerable to being dismantled after a few years of being launched, fair process should play a more strategic role in the implementation and evaluation phases when policies get challenged and reformulated to reflect the changing political and socioeconomic landscapes and to better manage early evidence on performance.

Success Talk: Narrative Accounts of Organizational Change

Based on evidence from narrative accounts of organizational change, the potential of dialogic approaches that privilege joint construction of both change challenges and interventions appears very promising. This evidence also demystifies the notion of “well-planned” change, may further strengthen moves away from n-step programmatic approaches to change intervention, reminds readers of the importance of procedural fairness, and invites further research in terms of collective leadership. Where retrospective stories through which participants distinguished perceived success and failure provide the data for analysis, it is important that findings are understood within a narrative rather than an objective frame of reference.

Rising Powers, UN Security Council Reform, and the Failure of Rhetorical Coercion

AbstractDespite repeated calls for reform, the UN Security Council has as yet resisted to satisfy the demands of a group of rising powers – Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan (G4) – for a permanent seat. We focus on one strategy of institutional adaptation to power shifts mentioned in the introductory article to this special issue and examine why the G4’s rhetorical coercion strategy has failed to resonate with the Council’s permanent members and the wider UN membership. Looking at the key debate on Security Council reform in the General Assembly in 2005, we examine the justifications the G4 have offered to support their proposal and whether these have been accepted as legitimate by UN member states. We show that the G4’s rhetorical coercion strategy has failed to resonate with the targeted audience because the G4 have justified their demand strongly in terms of how their material contributions would enhance the UN’s performance. In contrast, the G4’s opponents provided justifications predominantly based on fair and democratic procedures, generating higher levels of expressed support. The importance of procedural fairness is consistent with findings in social psychology and challenges the prominent argument that performance is the main path to legitimacy for international institutions.

A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings

The WADA Code upholds the virtues of procedural fairness. Minimum procedural guarantees have been strengthened under the 2021 WADA Code and the International Standard for Results Management. However, implementation of these guarantees by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) and domestic anti-doping panels are critical in ensuring that athletes are afforded procedural fairness. While some countries have enacted reforms in anti-doping dispute resolution infrastructure, other jurisdictions are arguably lagging behind. Since few doping disputes are heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a strong domestic dispute resolution framework should encourage independence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as promote consistency and procedural fairness at all levels of hearing. First instance hearings are particularly significant given that CAS is not considered a practical option for many athletes, especially those from developing countries, predominately due to challenges of access to justice and affordability. Irrespective of procedurally unfair decisions at first instance, CAS has the de novo right of review to correct any such irregularities. However, this approach alone is inadequate, especially given that most athletes do not appeal to CAS. CAS, WADA and NADOs all have significant roles to play in ensuring procedural fairness for athletes. WADA and NADOs need to do more to ensure compliance with procedural guarantees at first instance. This paper advances the debate on the importance of procedural fairness and proposes a research agenda to support future reform, arguing that the current anti-doping model needs to reconsider how these important standards are upheld, from first instance until final appeal.

Developing and implementing policy for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food in South Africa

Like many other countries, South Africa has come under public pressure to introduce mandatory labelling for genetically modified (GM) foods. Although there is increased understanding of the social and political implications of GM labelling in developed countries, implications for the global South are still poorly understood. South Africa, as a country that consumes, produces and trades GM food, represents a fitting case study of these dimensions in the context of a developing economy. Via policy analysis, stakeholder interviews and document inquiry we offer an overview of the evolution of GM labelling, investigate the central influences on its development and implementation, determine the critical issues and identify the factors impeding or facilitating implementation. Our findings reveal that many significant events and decisions influenced the policy on mandatory GM food labelling in South Africa. They also suggest that several pertinent and problematic issues arose during its development as a result of the contentious nature of GM food labelling; stakeholder opinions, influences, and conflicted positions; and its practical complexity. Key implementation issues included divergent interpretations, and thus high levels of ambiguity; an inefficient National Consumer Commission; a lack of recourse for non-compliance; and the absence of a government-enforcement agency. Lower capacity in developing countries underscores the importance of a participation process that is believable by and inclusive of all actors. Stakeholders’ opinions about the policy development process were affected by their predetermined viewpoints about GMOs. Findings emphasise the influence of larger policy debates about the acceptability of GMOs on participatory processes, and the importance of contextualising GM labelling policies within such debates.
 Significance:
 
 The first review of the evolution of mandatory GM food labelling policy in South Africa is provided.
 A knowledge gap with regard to GM food labelling in developing countries is filled.
 The importance of procedural fairness in determining the degree of stakeholder satisfaction with policy decisions is revealed.

Prison Legitimacy and Procedural Fairness: A Multilevel Examination of Prisoners in England and Wales

The procedural justice model has been widely used as an explanation for understanding legitimacy and compliance with the law, particularly within the context of policing. Central to this model is the importance of procedural fairness—in which the treatment of citizens and offenders by criminal justice agents can play a key role in building legitimacy and influencing compliance with legal rules and values. This paper examines the relationship between procedural fairness and legitimacy within the context of corrections. Drawing on data from a longitudinal survey of more than 3,000 prisoners across England and Wales, we identify an important link between procedural fairness and prisoner perceptions of legitimacy. We further examine variations in legitimacy in terms of individual prisoner characteristics, conditions within prison, as well as differences between prisons.

The Principle of Procedural Fairness and its Implementation in the Administrative Proceedings - Perspective of the Country in the Democratic Transition

Procedural fairness can be considered one of the basic principles of contemporary democratic states. Its sources can be identified in the international law and constitutional laws as well as in the opinions of legal theoreticians. The procedural fairness shall be understood as the group of values that shall be protected by the legal guarantees provided in different procedures, including administrative ones. For the European “new democracies” a major a role in establishing high standards in this respect is played by the system of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Especially there we find clear grounds for referring standards established by the Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial) and procedural guarantees of other rights and freedoms (such as protection of property) also to proceedings before administrative bodies.The article is concentrated on the question if procedural fairness is respected to a satisfactory degree in case of proceedings before the regulatory administrative bodies such as competition authorities. At the beginning, the description of the procedural fairness as both theoretical concept and constitutional principle is given. Further, when looking for the values of procedural fairness and the scope of its application, the standards under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are analysed. Afterwards, from the perspective of Poland, problems concerning the degree to which the procedural fairness is respected during the proceedings before the regulatory administrative bodies are described. The proceedings before the Polish competition authority is chosen as a case in point. In conclusion, the article underlines the importance of procedural fairness as the constitutional principle applicable in the proceedings before central administrative bodies that are entitled to interfere with the rights and freedoms of private entities.

Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation

This study investigates whether participation in goal-setting within performance measurement and evaluation processes affects goal commitment and if so, whether the effect is mediated by procedural fairness and interpersonal trust. Using a sample of 54 managers within a UK financial services organisation, this study finds that participation in goal-setting is positively associated with goal commitment. Further analysis arising from introducing procedural fairness and interpersonal trust as mediating variables reveals that the association is significantly mediated by procedural fairness. Overall, these findings offer empirical evidence on the importance of procedural fairness on the relationship between participation and goal commitment.

The Importance of Procedural Fairness in Budgeting

Abstract The importance of organizational commitment in enhancing management accounting systems effectiveness has received increased attention in recent years. Surprisingly, no research has investigated whether budgetary participation, by itself , affects organizational commitment, and the process by which this occurs. Procedural justice literature suggests that participation may affect procedural fairness which, in turn, may affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This study therefore proposes that budgetary participation affects job satisfaction indirectly through procedural fairness. It also proposes that the effects of participation on organizational commitment are indirect through procedural fairness and job satisfaction. The results provide support for these propositions.

The Shifting Importance of Procedural Fairness in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings

The Shifting Importance of Procedural Fairness in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings

THE INTERVENING EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE

Prior studies have suggested that the subordinates’ perception of fairness in their organizations’ procedures is related to improvements in the subordinates’ performance. However, the positive relationship between perception of justice and performance may not be a direct one, but is indirect via the intervening variable of participation. It is likely that the importance of maintaining procedural fairness in the organization will lead senior managers (superiors) to select procedures that allow their subordinates more participation privileges in the organization’s affairs because high participative procedures are perceived to be fair. This increase in participation, in turn, is likely to improve the subordinates’ performance. The results, based on a path analytical model and a sample of 83 senior managers, indicate that procedural justice has an indirect effect on performance via participation. On the basis of these results, it is possible to conclude that the importance of procedural fairness in the organization leads to the selection of procedures with high subordinates’ participation, which, in turn, leads to high managerial performance.

The Legal and Psychosocial Context of Family Violence: Toward a Social Ecological Analysis

The purpose of this special issues is to advance our understanding of family violence by utilizing a social ecological framework that both encompasses and addresses the interrelationship between the legal and psychosocial contexts of family violence (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Garbarino 1977; Goldstein 1994; Moos 1973). A social ecological framework necessitates acknowledging and understanding that human behavior is influenced by several levels of analysis rather than only immediate and intrapersonal influences. Based on this perspective, researchers must take into account social, contextual, environmental, and individual factors to fully understand a particular phenomenon such as family violence. The articles themselves reflect current scholarly and professional trends towards a more interdisciplinary, systemic approach to complex psychosocial problems such as family violence. Each of the articles has a distinct focus on a particular aspect of family violence while at the same time highlighting several common themes: the interrelationship between law and social/cultural contexts, the importance of moving beyond overly individualistic assumptions about human behavior, and the importance of procedural fairness and substantive considerations across the varied legal and extralegal contexts in which interpersonal conflicts occur.

Investigating Misconduct in Science: The National Science Foundation Model

Reports in the popular press,(1) as well as recent studies by organizations,(2) make clear that the problem of misconduct in science(3) is real and persistent. integrity is not always ensured by science's self-correcting mechanisms.(4) The effects of misconduct go beyond distortion of data. Misconduct can also undermine the proper and fair allocation of federal resources when it involves peer review of grant proposals, a process that depends on honesty and integrity. The public faith in science that is necessary to ensure sufficient funding for the progress of science depends on honest applications for federal funding and honest use of public funds. Therefore, both the government and the academic community need effective procedures for dealing with misconduct in science. Despite the need for effective procedures for establishing whether misconduct in science has occurred, considerable controversy has arisen over which procedures should be used. Most universities have only recently put in place procedures for dealing with misconduct in science and have not yet fully tested them.(5) According to an American Association for the Advancement of Science survey, scientists lack confidence in university handling of misconduct cases.(6) This article presents our study of the principles underlying NSF's procedures for handling misconduct in science, as well as the results of NSF's experience in handling allegations of misconduct. By presenting the rationale for NSF's procedures, we hope not only to persuade the community of the applicability of these procedures to misconduct in science cases but also to stimulate comment and criticism. The Scientific Dialogue Model Many early cases of misconduct in science have been handled according to procedures developed at the Public Health Service (PHS) and referred to as the scientific model.(7) This model emulates the peer review process by assembling a panel of scientists who investigate allegations and reach a consensus on whether misconduct has occurred.(8) Although the familiarity of the procedures initially appealed to some scientists, the community itself has criticized handling of cases under the dialogue model for not meeting standards of confidentiality and fairness.(9) Applying methods developed for the evaluation of manuscripts, grant proposals, or tenure qualifications to the determination of ethically acceptable conduct leaves unfulfilled expectations. When proceedings may lead to sanctions, both accused scientists and observers expect certain protections. Nonetheless, some scientists resisted application of traditional American investigative and adjudicative procedures, which offer such protections, to misconduct in science cases. Perhaps this was due to concerns that issues would get lost in such a setting.(10) However, theory and practice in the handling of misconduct cases has brought out the importance of procedural fairness. PHS has shown an increased awareness of procedural protections in handling misconduct in science cases by introducing the opportunity for a hearing.(11) NSF's Model for Handling Misconduct in Science Cases Since 1987 NSF has based its policies and procedures for handling misconduct in science cases on well-established administrative, civil, and criminal methods of investigation and adjudication.(12) NSF believes that traditional investigative and adjudicative procedures are appropriate when the issue is culpability for misconduct. These traditional procedures are preferable to alternatives adapted from the process of peer review. Peer reviewers necessarily assume that authors are truthful. Because the central issue to be resolved in a misconduct case is whether an individual has been truthful, a system like peer review is inappropriate because it lacks the investigative, adjudicatory, and due process mechanisms to evaluate that issue accurately and fairly. …