Decoding decision discrepancy: Unravelling noise in seismic authorizations

Public officials implementing policy statutes are crucial in translating rules into actual services. Professionals tasked with seismic authorisations implement complex regulations and must apply scientific knowledge to specific cases. They interpret rules, analyse cases and provide case-specific evaluations to authorise a building project or not. This article examines noise—how public officials in the same administration produce inconsistent decisions when attending the same administrative procedure. In public services, variability across different cases may be beneficial and increase effectiveness by adjusting general rules to the specifics of the cases elaborated by the administration. Instead, noise measures how decisions on the same case (e.g., same felony, application for housing or environmental evaluation) differ when made by different public officials. Noise is unwanted and unjustified; it impairs treatment equity, introduces errors and makes organisations unpredictable; decisions depend on the public official assigned to the case, not on uniform rules or the idiosyncrasies of the case. This article examines noise—how public officials in the same administration produce inconsistent decisions when attending the same administrative procedure. We conducted an experimental test with public officials managing seismic authorisations and analysed a database containing all seismic audits in one Italian region (N=17,463). The findings reveal substantial inconsistencies in seismic classification, the decision to grant building permits, the administrative burden imposed on citizens, and required changes to building projects. Such inconsistency significantly threatens administrative quality, effectiveness, and legitimacy.