On the Moral Dimension of Bureaucratic Reputation. A qualitative content analysis of expressive statements about 4 Dutch regulators.

Should regulatory agencies strive to exhibit neutral expertise; should they strive to cultivate a strong moral reputation; or can they perhaps do both things at the same time? As scholars of bureaucratic reputation (BR) hold different views on this matter, this study focuses specifically on the moral reputation of regulators. Drawing on the field of moral philosophy, this study shows that Daniel Carpenter’s (2010) original description of the moral dimension of reputation combines three different (and possibly conflicting) conceptions of morality: consequentialism, virtue ethics and deontology. In line with this, BR-scholars have conceptualised and operationalised moral reputation in different ways, which in turn led to differences in views on the importance of moral reputation for regulators. Moreover, most of the BR-scholarship on this topic takes an agency-perspective on regulator reputation, while reputation is an audience-based construct. Therefore, this study takes an audience perspective, aiming to shed light on the question of how audiences actually perceive the moral reputation of regulators. A qualitative content analysis of expressive statements about regulators will be performed, to explore which conception(s) of morality audiences draw on to judge the moral aspects of regulation. Specifically, this study will analyse how 3 key audiences (politicians, regulatees and citizens) appraise the moral reputation of 4 Dutch regulators (ACM, IGJ, IJenV & NVWA).