Advertisement

Collective Discretionary Room: How Inspectors Decide with Providers and Citizens

  • Suzanne Rutz
  • Antoinette de Bont
Chapter

Abstract

To tackle social problems inspectors need to organize the involvement of others. The involvement of others fosters inspectors to create a wider picture of the situation and expand their repertoire of actions. The literature on regulatory bureaucracies overlooks the need to organize the involvement of relevant others. The concept of collective discretionary room fills this gap. Collective discretionary room organizes: (1) interaction between inspectors, regulated services, citizens and all relevant others, (2) reflective processes that open up opportunities to improve ways of working and enhance responsiveness. In addition, the notion of collective discretionary room explicates skills inspectors need to develop that is the skill to recognize alternative views and to demonstrate impact. With the example of the Joint Inspectorate Social Domain in the Netherlands, we illustrate how inspectors involve others in these ways.

Keywords

Responsive regulation Street-level bureaucrats Discretion Reflection Network Inspectors 

References

  1. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1991). Tripartism: Regulatory capture and empowerment. Law & Social Inquiry, 16(3), 435–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982/2002). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness (with a new introduction by the authors ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bokhorst, M., & Van Erp, J. (2017). Van transparantie naar responsiviteit. Ontwikkeling van de omgevingsgerichtheid van toezichthouders. Een verkenning voor de inspectieraad. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, J. (2013). Relational republican regulation. Regulation & Governance, 7(1), 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braithwaite, J. (2017). Types of responsiveness. In P. Drahos (Ed.), Regulatory theory: Foundations and applications (pp. 117–132). Acton, Australia: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J., Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, V. (2007). Regulating aged care: Ritualism and the new pyramid. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coslovsky, S. V. (2011). Relational regulation in the Brazilian ministério publico: The organizational basis of regulatory responsiveness. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge, LA: Lousiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Vries, F. (2016). Leidt transparantie tot meer vertrouwen in de toezichthouder? Inaugural lecture (2016, March 29). The Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  12. Drahos, P. (2004). Intellectual property and pharmaceutical markets: A nodal governance approach. Temple Law Review, 77(2), 401–424.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, C., & Affolder, N. (2011). Responsive regulation in context, circa 2011. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 463–473.Google Scholar
  15. Gunningham, N. (2012). Regulatory reform and reflexive regulation: Beyond command and control. In E. Brousseau, T. Dedeurwaerdere, & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Reflexive governance for global public goods (pp. 85–104). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunningham, N., & Grabosky, P. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hupe, P. L. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Der Moderne Staat: Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 425–440.Google Scholar
  18. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  21. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). (2015). Improving risk regulation. Lausanne: IRGC.Google Scholar
  22. Koop, C., & Lodge, M. (2015). What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis. Regulation & Governance, 11(1), 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The logic of appropriateness (ARENA Working Papers No. WP 04/09). Oslo: Arena, Centre for European Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Mascini, P. (2013). Why was the enforcement pyramid so influential? And what price was paid? Regulation & Governance, 7(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mascini, P., & van Wijk, E. (2009). Responsive regulation at the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. May, P. J., & Wood, R. S. (2003). At the regulatory front lines: Inspectors’ enforcement styles and regulatory compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies, 32(10), 1349–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 22–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perez, O. (2011). Responsive regulation and second-order reflexivity: On the limits of regulatory intervention. UBC Law Review, 44, 743–778.Google Scholar
  32. Perez, O. (2014). Courage, regulatory responsibility, and the challenge of higher-order reflexivity. Regulation & Governance, 8(2), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raaphorst, N., & Loyens, K. (2018). From poker games to kitchen tables: How social dynamics affect frontline decision making. Administration & Society.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718761651.
  34. Renn, O. (2004). Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rice, D. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45, 1038–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rutz, S. I. (2017). Practicing reflexive regulation (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. Rutz, S. I., & de Bont, A. A. (Forthcoming). Organized discretion. In T. Evans & P. L. Hupe (Eds.), The Palgrave Macmillan handbook on discretion: The quest for controlled freedom. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Rutz, S. I., Adams, S. A., Buitendijk, S. E., Robben, P. B. M., & de Bont, A. A. (2013). Hiding complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity: How inspectorates simplify issues to create enforceable action. Health, Risk & Society, 15(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & Bont, A. (2017). Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation & Governance, 11(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rutz, S., van de Bovenkamp, H. M., Buitendijk, S. E., Robben, P. B. M., & de Bont, A. A. (2018). Inspectors’ responses to adolescents’ assessment of quality of care: A case study on involving adolescents in inspections. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 169–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Samenwerkend Toezicht Jeugd/Toezicht Sociaal Domein (STJ/TSD). (2015). Meerjarenvisie 2016–2019. Utrecht: STJ/TSD.Google Scholar
  43. Silbey, S. S. (2011). The sociological citizen: Pragmatic and relational regulation in law and organizations. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sparrow, M. K. (2000). The regulatory craft: Controlling risks, solving problems, and managing compliance. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  45. ‘t Hart, P. (1998). Preventing groupthink revisited: Evaluating and reforming groups in government. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2), 306–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tummers, L. G., & Bekkers, V. J. J. M. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Asselt, M. B. A., & Renn, O. (2011). Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus School of Health Policy & ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Joint Inspectorate Social DomainHealth and Youth Care InspectorateUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations