Cited by 20Public Policy and Administration ResearchAdministrative Law and GovernanceRegulation and Compliance Studies

Citizens' perceptions of the legitimacy of independent agencies: The effects of expertise‐based and reputation‐sourced authority

Open access
Rimkutė, Dovilė, Mazepus, Honorata·2025·Public Administration Review

Abstract

Legitimacy is a central concern for independent agencies tasked with shaping policies. While expertise‐based and reputation‐sourced authority bases are assumed to be relevant for agency legitimacy, their individual and joint effects on citizens' perceptions lack comprehensive examination. To address this gap, the study integrates insights from bureaucratic politics, bureaucratic reputation, and cognitive psychology. Our survey experiment with Dutch citizens, focusing on the European Food Safety Authority, suggests that expertise‐based authority positively affects perceived agency legitimacy, while a negative reputation has detrimental effects. Furthermore, expertise‐based authority moderates the impact of reputation, amplifying positive effects and mitigating negative ones. This implies that agencies are more susceptible to reputational threats when they lack expertise‐based authority. The study advances the theoretical tenets of bureaucratic reputation theory and offers effective strategies for agencies to strengthen their legitimacy among the most critical audience in democratic political systems—citizens.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/puar.13916

Cites

82 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  2. Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. 2001. The Gov- ernment of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes, New edi- zione ed. Oxford ; New York: OUP Oxford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rimkutė, D., & Mazepus, H.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Rimkutė, Dovilė
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-01-02
Volume
85
Issue
5
Pages
1495-1511
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
OpenAlex
W4406039459
Cited by
20
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10
FWCI
32.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Administration Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit Leiden
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VI.Veni.191R.078)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
Keywords
independent agencies, bureaucratic reputation, citizen perceptions, EFSA, bureaucratic politics, regulatory agencies, public trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review