Can the Public be Trusted? The Promise and Perils of Voluntary Compliance

A recent webinar hosted by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore brought together scholars to examine the promise and perils of voluntary compliance, with the session taking place on 14 April 2026. The event featured Professor Yuval Feldman of Bar-Ilan University and was moderated by Professor Ernest Lim, attracting an interdisciplinary academic audience interested in regulation and behavioural insights.

Feldman’s presentation drew on his book Can the Public be Trusted? On the Promise and Perils of Voluntary Compliance (Cambridge University Press, 2025) and offered a critical perspective on the capacity of regulatory systems to generate genuine voluntary compliance. He emphasised that while voluntary compliance is normatively attractive, its empirical foundations remain comparatively weak. In contrast to adjacent concepts such as resilient or “beyond” compliance, the mechanisms that produce sustained, high-quality voluntary adherence are not well understood. The analysis underscored the gap between policy aspirations and behavioural realities.

A central theme of the presentation was heterogeneity. Feldman argued that regulatory strategies premised on uniform assumptions about individuals are unlikely to succeed. Differentiation, rather than generalised trust, is essential, particularly given the risks of crowding out intrinsic motivations. He further noted that intrinsic motivation, while potentially valuable, is limited in its ability to ensure compliance. This raises questions about the effectiveness of softer regulatory approaches, including nudges and cooperative frameworks, which often yield inconsistent and context-dependent results.

The presentation also explored sectoral variation, contrasting domains such as taxation and environmental regulation. Feldman highlighted differences in frequency, visibility, and political contestation, suggesting that voluntary compliance operates differently across contexts. These distinctions complicate efforts to generalise findings or design universal interventions.

The discussion that followed was marked by thoughtful and incisive contributions, reflecting the depth of engagement within the audience. The exchange underscored the importance of sustained academic dialogue in refining both theoretical and policy-oriented understandings of compliance.