This paper examines how democratic governments maintain social order through the justice system, with a focus on the tension between deterrence-based enforcement and legitimacy-driven compliance. Drawing primarily on Tom R. Tyler's Why People Obey the Law, it argues that threats and punishment alone are insufficient motivators of law-abiding behavior. The paper surveys evidence from smoking-law compliance studies, urban policing outcomes, and public administration theory to show that procedural justice — the public's belief that the law treats them fairly — is a stronger predictor of voluntary compliance than sanctions. It also distinguishes between public- and private-sector legal frameworks, cautioning against applying corporate management models to government administration.
In Why People Obey the Law, Tom R. Tyler analyzes the writings of various authorities in political science, public policy, and public management who examine the relationship between law, democracy, government policy, and human behavior. The book systematically explores the link between legal institutions and the conduct of the people they govern (Tyler, 2006).
Laws were designed to control public behavior. There are many theories of how compliance with the law can be achieved, but most rely on threats or punishment. Deterrence theory, Tyler notes, has been widely utilized since the 1980s and has remained the predominant means of maintaining social order into the twenty-first century. The values of the general population are also shaped by voluntary deference to authority, rooted in a sense of obligation to and respect for their leaders.
However, the way a local government manages social order among its residents does not translate directly to how nations maintain order on the world stage — a challenge the United States has confronted this century. Terrorism is a significant part of this problem, illustrating that members of organizations, groups, or societies have unique relationships to the institutions and authorities that govern them. Threats or rewards by governing bodies appear to have little effect on a committed terrorist.
The assumption that incentives and sanctions are the primary factors motivating human behavior has been the subject of numerous studies examining risk assessment based on law-related behavior and enhanced performance through incentives. Results consistently show that the degree of desired performance is tied to the provision of rewards, while the degree of deterrence tied to punishment varies considerably. It has even been demonstrated that widespread deterrence — a contemporary example being the approach taken by the Pakistani government — can produce the opposite of its intended effect on the general population, fostering a broad disregard for authority.
In the United States, the dramatic growth of the prison population relative to overall population size has made the country a world leader in deterrence philosophy. Some argue this demonstrates that deterrence reduces crime; others contend that the heavy use of deterrence, particularly against disadvantaged communities, has undermined respect for the law and damaged police-community relations in urban and minority neighborhoods. Research on violent behavior has also challenged popular assumptions: many people believe that mental disorders cause violence and that individuals discharged from acute psychiatric facilities are responsible for a disproportionate share of violent crimes, but this has generally been found to be untrue, and numerous social policy changes have been recommended and implemented on the basis of such research (Monahan, 1984).
Deterrence in democratic — and other — forms of government appears to have no consistent positive effect on behavior. Legitimacy alone, it is suggested, has not been shown to produce clear behavioral improvements. What does seem to have an effect, however, is a vision of social order built on the consent and cooperation of the public with the law and legal institutions. This is known as a noninstrumental vision of compliance.
This approach was tested in Chicago, where it was used to support the argument that, while legitimacy is a stated goal, legitimacy itself is not grounded in instrumental judgments but in procedural justice. As Tyler explains: "Respondents defined procedural justice in reference to noninstrumental issues… people's motivation to cooperate with others, in this case legal authorities, is rooted in social relationships and ethical judgments and does not primarily flow from the desire to avoid punishments or gain rewards" (Tyler, 2006, p. 269). In other words, people obey the law when they believe they are being heard and that the law takes their concerns seriously. Once government and legal institutions begin to disregard justice and the rights of citizens, those citizens begin to disregard the law.
To measure the extent of compliance with deterrence-based laws, one useful example is the influence of government policy on employee behavior within a democracy. When smoking regulations were enacted by the state of Vermont, and workplace policies were supposedly adjusted to reflect this, two surveys were conducted to measure compliance: (1) a random-digit telephone survey of employees, and (2) a subsequent mail survey of employers. Importantly, employers were not informed that their employees had already been surveyed.
Policies in compliance with state law were reported by just over half (56%) of employees and 66.5% of employers. Overall agreement on compliance with state law was found in 67.6% of cases. Following enactment of the law, smoking in workplaces declined, as did the prevalence of smoking at home. However, changes toward more restrictive policies were associated not with employees quitting smoking but with reductions in cigarette consumption at work. The study concluded that a significant proportion of worksite smoking policies may not fully comply with statewide smoking laws. It also found that relying solely on employer-reported data likely overestimates the true rate of compliance (Paulozzi, Spengler, & Gower, 1992).
The relationship between law and employee behavior is thus shaped substantially by governmental policy. Some scholars suggest that public administration has lost its theoretical grounding over the past five decades, having largely abandoned its roots in public law — derived from the Constitution, statutes, and case law — in favor of the generic behavioral principles of management taught in business schools. Practitioners and students of government administration have been influenced by advocates of entrepreneurial management, the most prominent example of which was the approach associated with Vice President Cheney's National Performance Review Report, which reiterated the model outlined in Osborne and Gaebler's (1992) Reinventing Government. Many major professional organizations and practitioners of public administration viewed this as the next step in synthesizing management science, not as a challenge to fundamental democratic values (Moe & Gilmour, 1995).
"Vermont smoking-law study reveals compliance gaps"
"Constitutional vs. corporate models of government management"
Paulozzi, L. J., Spengler, R. F., & Gower, M. A. (1992). An evaluation of the Vermont worksite smoking law. Public Health Reports, 107(6), 724–726.
Springer, L. M. (2007). Training and development policy. U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.