Advertisement

Discretion in the Policy Process

  • Peter HupeEmail author
  • Michael Hill
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines discretion in the policy process. On the basis of an examination of the theoretical literature, some specific insights are identified. First, discretion concerns the freedom to act as granted in a set of rules. Second, the way a rule is applied leaves the rule intact. Third, norms aimed to prescribe action stem from many sources in addition to formal rules. Fourth, cultural standards and the institutional context are important sources. Fifth, the degree of legitimacy of practised discretion will vary. This theoretical examination leads on to an exploration of where discretion is located in the policy process. Discretion can be found in street-level implementation, but not only there. It appears to be granted as well as exercised at a multiplicity of points within an overall context, in which both vertical and horizontal power relationships may apply. Hence from an ‘output’ perspective, the study of discretion concerns the question how laws or other norms ‘work’ within a multi-layered structure.

References

  1. Allison, G.T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  2. Baker Collins, S. (2016). The space in the rules: Bureaucratic discretion in the administration of Ontario Works. Social Policy and Society, 15(2), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodkin, E.Z. (2011). Policy work: Street level organizations under New Managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull, D. (1980). The anti-discretion movement in Britain: Fact or phantom? Journal of Social Welfare Law, 2(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, N. (2016). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. American Review of Public Administration, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016665919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, K.C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dicey, A.V. (1915). Introduction to the study of the law and the constitution (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin, R.M. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Elazar, D.J. (1995). Federalism. In S.M. Lipset (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, T. (2015). Professionals and discretion in street-level bureaucracy. In P.L Hupe, M.J. Hill & A. Buffat (Eds), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 279–293). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freidson, E. (1970). Professional dominance. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
  12. Galligan, D.J. (1986). Discretionary powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Galligan, D.J. (1990). Discretionary powers: A legal study of official discretion. Chapter 1 ‘Senses of discretion’ retrieved from Oxford Scholarship Online  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198256526.001.0001 Subscriber: Erasmus University Library. Date: 7 September 2015.
  14. Garrow, E. & Grusky, O. (2013). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103–131.Google Scholar
  15. Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, P.A. (1986). Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in Britain and France. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hanf, K. (1993). Enforcing environmental laws: The social regulation of co-production. In M.J. Hill (Ed.), New agendas in the study of the policy process (pp. 88–109). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  18. Harrison, S. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and professionalism in health services. In P.L. Hupe, M.J. Hill & A. Buffat (Eds), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 61–78). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, S. & Pollitt, C. (1994). Controlling health professionals. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hewart, L. (1929). The new despotism. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, M.J. (Ed.) New agendas in the study of the policy process. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, M.J. & Varone, F. (2017). The public policy process. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, M.J. & Hupe, P.L. (2003). The multi-layer problem in implementation studies. Public Management Review, 5(4), 471–490.Google Scholar
  24. Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber, J.D. & Shipan, C.R. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hupe, P.L. (1993). The politics of implementation: Individual, organizational and political co-production in social services delivery. In M.J. Hill (Ed.), New agendas in the study of the policy process (pp. 130–151). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Hupe, P.L. (Ed.) (2019). Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Hupe, P.L. & Hill, M.J. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.Google Scholar
  30. Hupe, P.L., Hill, M.J. & Buffat, A. (Eds) (2015) Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jewell, C.J. (2007). Agents of the welfare state. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, T.J. (1972). Professions and power. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Jowell, J. (1973). The legal control of administrative discretion. Public Law, 178–220.Google Scholar
  34. Jowell, J. & Oliver, D. (Eds.) (2000). The changing Constitution (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Keiser, L.R., Mueser, P.R. & Choi, S.-W. (2004). Race, bureaucratic discretion, and the implementation of welfare reform. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 314–327.Google Scholar
  36. Key, V.O. Jr. (1942). Politics, parties and pressure groups. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  37. Klijn, E.-H.. (1997). Policy networks: An overview. In W.J.M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn & J.F.M. Koppenjan (Eds), Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector (pp. 14–34). London: SageGoogle Scholar
  38. Knoepfel, P. & Weidner, H. (1982). Formulation and implementation of air quality control programmes: Patterns of interest consideration. Policy and Politics, 10(1), 85–109.Google Scholar
  39. Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F. & Hill, M.J. (2007). Public policy analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Knoke, D. (1990). Policy networks: The structural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Koppenjan, J.F.M. & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Kuhlmann, S. & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to comparative public administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Lane, J.-E. & Ersson, S.O. (2000). The new institutional politics: Performance and outcomes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. May, P.J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. May, P.J. & Jochim, A.E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.Google Scholar
  48. May, P.J. (1995). Can cooperation be mandated? Implementing intergovernmental environmental management in New South Wales and New Zealand. Publius, 25(1), 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. May, P.J. & Burby, R.J. (1996). Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(2), 171–201.Google Scholar
  50. Painter, M. & Peters, B.G. (Eds) (2010). Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  51. Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sabatier, P.A. & Weible, C.M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P.A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  53. Scharpf, F.W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In K.I. Hanf & F.W. Scharpf (Eds), Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central Control (pp. 345–370) London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, M.J. (1993). Pressure, power and policy. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  55. Sosin, M.R. (2010). Discretion in human service organizations: Traditional and institutional perspectives. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 381–403). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor, I. & Kelly, J. (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reforms in the UK: Re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7), 629–642.Google Scholar
  58. Thomann, E., Hupe, P. & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319.Google Scholar
  59. Tummers, L.L.G. (2012). Policy alienation of public professionals: The construct and its measurement. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tummers, L.L.G., Steijn, A. & Bekkers, V.J.J.M. (2012). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies. Public Administration, 90(3), 716–736.Google Scholar
  61. Tummers, L.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.Google Scholar
  62. Tummers, L.L.G., Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Vink, E. & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 1099–1126.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Governance InstituteCatholic University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.University of NewcastleNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations