Search

Targeted transparency has become an essential tool for regulation. Through information disclosure, regulatory agencies try to get regulated companies to improve their practices and comply with regulations. In the past, regulation was associated with distrust in regulated sectors. Recent research suggests that regulation, especially targeted transparency, may also increase citizen trust in regulated sectors. However, empirical evidence on whether transparency as a regulatory tool undermines or decreases trust in a sector is lacking. We contribute to this debate by investigating the effect of targeted transparency on citizen trust through a large-scale representative survey experiment (n = 5,303). We used 12 transparency frames in three regulated domains in the Netherlands (consumer rights, healthcare safety, and nuclear plant safety). Our findings suggest that, in general, targeted transparency does not undermine trust, but has a positive effect on trust in regulated sectors. However, this effect is small and contextual, depending on the regulatory domain and type of transparency frame.

Supervisory bodies can intervene in organizational practices that may harm society, but their effectiveness to do so depends on their ability to make decisions reflectively and decisively. Are these tendencies incompatible with each other or can they go together? Can empowering leadership (i.e. participative, coaching, informing behaviors) stimulate reflectiveness and decisiveness? A 10-item Joint Decision-Making Questionnaire was developed and tested among supervisory officers (N = 87) and supervisory board members (N = 158). Reflectiveness and decisiveness were positively correlated, indicating that these tendencies can be reconciled in joint decision-making (Study 1). An examination of 44 supervisory teams further revealed that participative leadership relates to more reflectiveness and decisiveness, via cooperative trust and goal commitment (Study 2). Moreover, teams that experienced this team climate prior to COVID-19 reported that they acted more reflectively and decisively during this crisis (Study 3). Hence, participative leaders can foster reflectiveness and decisiveness, by promoting cooperative trust and goal commitment.

Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients face an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), even when classic cardiovascular risk factors are considered. Plasma dephosphorylated-uncarboxylated Matrix Gla-protein (dp-ucMGP), an inactive form of MGP, is associated with increased CVD risk. Smooth muscle cells, implicated in SSc’s development, are the primary dp-ucMGP producers. This study assessed dp-ucMGP levels and initial CVD events in early-diagnosed SSc patients, investigating its potential as a CVD and all-cause mortality predictor over time. Methods:In a cohort of 87 SSc patients (excluding those with pre-existing CVD or on dialysis), baseline dp-ucMGP levels were measured, along with cardiovascular risk factors. Validation involved assessing dp-ucMGP in a subset of treatment-naive SSc patients. Results: A significantly elevated median dp-ucMGP level of 634 pmol/L (IQR 301) compared with healthy controls (dp-ucMGP < 393 pmol/L; p < 0.001) was observed. Validation in a treatment-naive SSc patient subset yielded similar results (median 589 pmol/L; IQR 370). During a median 10.5-year follow-up among 78 SSc patients, 33.3% experienced their first CVD event, independent of traditional risk factors. Elevated dp-ucMGP levels (>634 pmol/L) correlated with a higher risk of CVD and/or death (log-rank test: p < 0.01). Conclusions: In summary, dp-ucMGP emerges as a novel biomarker in SSc patients, with elevated levels indicating an increased risk of CVD and/or mortality in this population.

Een denkfout (of bias) ontstaat wanneer mensen op basis van aannames onbewust een verkeerde conclusie trekken. Onder toezichthouders (Ntotaal = 339) is onderzocht in hoeverre zij een potentiële ‘blinde vlek’ vertonen voor hun eigen denkfouten en hoe deze blinde vlek kan worden beïnvloed. Uit dit onderzoek bleek dat toezichthouders inderdaad inschatten dat denkfouten meer bij anderen voorkomen dan bij henzelf, en dat zelfwaargenomen objectiviteit deze blinde vlek kan vergroten. Ook bleek dat toezichthouders die waakzamer zijn in mindere mate een blinde vlek hebben voor hun eigen denkfouten. Toezichthouders geruststellen over het risico op denkfouten in de besluitvorming maakte hen juist minder waakzaam.

Decision transparency is often proposed as a way to maintain or even increase citizen trust, yet this assumption is still untested in the context of regulatory agencies. We test the effect of transparency of a typical decision tradeoff in regulatory enforcement: granting forbearance or imposing a sanction. We employed a representative survey experiment (n = 1,546) in which we test the effect of transparency in general (providing information about a decision or not) and the effect of specific types of transparency (process or rationale transparency). We do this for agencies supervising financial markets, education, and health care. We find that overall decision transparency significantly increases citizen trust in only two of the three agencies. Rationale transparency has a more pronounced positive effect only for the Education Inspectorate. We conclude that the overall effect of decision transparency is positive but that the nature of the regulatory domain may weaken or strengthen this effect.