This chapter examines how observers — regulated entities and third parties — perceive the decisions made in the experiments of chapter 5. Rather than studying the trustworthiness of decision-making, that is, this chapter studies how procedures affect the trust that observers place in those decisions. Do the reasoning requirements enhance observers’ trust in decision? If so, what drives any changes in trust: the substantive decision, or the procedural accompaniments of the decision? This chapter attempts to isolate these two typically confounded components that plausibly feed into notions of public sector trust and legitimacy. The analysis indicates that both the substantive decision and the procedural accompaniments enhance perceptions of trust and legitimacy.

This is the first of two empirical chapters that probe implications of the theory using novel experiments that borrow from experimental economics. This chapter examines whether important elements of administrative law—e.g., requirements for reason-giving and analysis—affect decision-making. The basic design of the experiments involves providing people with a responsibility to distribute money under some guidelines, and then experimentally manipulates various reason-giving and analytical requirements. The experiments include elements of information asymmetry and provide participants with financial incentives to deviate from the guidelines, features intended to mimic salient characteristics of decision-making by public officials. The chapter shows that reason-giving requirements and forms of judicial review enhance the trustworthiness of those put in positions of responsibility.