By way of tabulating the foregoing analysis, Figure 3 considers three different possible transparency belief systems and their cultural influences. The belief systems emerge out of the public policy debate on transparency and are affected chiefly by the dominance of particular cultural biases in the arguments made within that policy arena. Further belief systems are possible, and these emerge out of dyads and triads, of biases operating in combination with one another. The tabulation demonstrates that any potential future policy brokerage on revised access to documents legislation in the EU, must focus on promoting mutually acceptable solutions to the policy approach framed within that legislation. As was discussed in Chapter 7, there is limited scope for influencing the deep core beliefs that inform actor positions on transparency, but there is potential to pursue negotiation on the ‘policy core’ beliefs in relation to the terms of the legislative instrument itself and pursuing forms of wording that do not undermine deep core beliefs. Belief System 1 Belief System 2 Belief System 3 More transparency? More transparency? More transparency? Yes, on the condition Absolutely, it is a No, not unless there is that it does not impact prerequisite of empirical evidence of on institutional democratic quality the ‘value’ it adds, effectiveness and is and promotes along with its subjected to an accountability. necessity. accepted regulatory design process. Style of Thinking and Hierarchical and Egalitarian and Strongly Acting moderately moderately individualistic, individualistic. hierarchical. moderately fatalistic. Policy Approach Stabilises existing Prioritises core Questions normative institutional structures. democratic values, assumptions, promotes Prioritises the ‘value’ subjugates the less regulation. in information. preferences to those values. Planning and Decisive, structured Decisive, broadly Not decisive, limited Implementation with agreement about construed legislative intervention. legislative instruments. provisions with few constraints and exceptions.
By way of tabulating the foregoing analysis, Figure 3 considers three different possible transparency belief systems and their cultural influences. The belief systems emerge out of the public policy debate on transparency and are affected chiefly by the dominance of particular cultural biases in the arguments made within that policy arena. Further belief systems are possible, and these emerge out of dyads and triads, of biases operating in combination with one another. The tabulation demonstrates that any potential future policy brokerage on revised access to documents legislation in the EU, must focus on promoting mutually acceptable solutions to the policy approach framed within that legislation. As was discussed in Chapter 7, there is limited scope for influencing the deep core beliefs that inform actor positions on transparency, but there is potential to pursue negotiation on the ‘policy core’ beliefs in relation to the terms of the legislative instrument itself and pursuing forms of wording that do not undermine deep core beliefs. Belief System 1 Belief System 2 Belief System 3 More transparency? Yes, on the condition that it does not impact on institutional effectiveness and is subjected to an accepted regulatory design process. More transparency? Absolutely, it is a prerequisite of democratic quality and promotes accountability. More transparency? No, not unless there is empirical evidence of the ‘value’ it adds, along with its necessity. Style of Thinking and Acting Hierarchical and moderately individualistic. Egalitarian and moderately hierarchical. Strongly individualistic, moderately fatalistic. Policy Approach Stabilises existing institutional structures. Prioritises the ‘value’ in information. Prioritises core democratic values, subjugates the preferences to those values. Questions normative assumptions, promotes less regulation. Planning and Implementation Decisive, structured with agreement about legislative instruments. Decisive, broadly construed legislative provisions with few constraints and exceptions. Not decisive, limited intervention.
PhD%20Final.docx