Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Studying Uncertainty in Decision Making by Street-Level Inspectors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government

Abstract

Street-level inspectors make decisions about inspectees in circumstances that are characterized by uncertainty. With control as the hallmark of top-down views on bureaucracy, uncertainty is seen as something that must be reduced to the greatest possible extent. Managerial oversight and strict rules are means by which this is typically done. Research has however shown that daily operations of bureaucracy are often characterized by uncertainty. In fact, public organizations nowadays even tolerate more uncertainty by stressing the relevance of professional judgment. This chapter offers an analytical approach to study uncertainty from a bottom-up perspective, which is illustrated by drawing on research on Dutch street-level tax officials. It shows how uncertainty is experienced and dealt with by street-level bureaucrats. Building on these insights, the chapter concludes by offering suggestions for theoretically advancing this field of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation, transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belastingdienst. (2016). Controleaanpak Belastingdienst (CAB): De CAB en zijn modellen toegepast in toezicht. Retrieved from https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/themaoverstijgend/brochures_en_publicaties/controleaanpak_belastingdienst.

  • Bovens, M. A. P., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253–i277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (2015). The inside story: Street-level research in the US and beyond. In P. Hupe, M. Hill, & A. Buffat (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 25–42). Bristol: Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 299–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, N. (2018). Street-level enforcement style: A multidimensional measurement instrument. International Journal of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1465954.

  • de Boer, N., Eshuis, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2018). Does disclosure of performance information influence street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style? Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1966). Bureaucratic structure and decisionmaking. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, V. (2014). The state, legal rigor, and the poor. Social Analysis, 58(3), 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 739–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foldy, E. G., & Buckley, T. R. (2010). Re-creating street-level practice: The role of routines, work groups and team learning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajduschek, G. (2003). Bureaucracy: Is it efficient? Is it not? Is that the question? Uncertainty reduction: An ignored element of bureaucratic rationality. Administration & Society, 34(6), 700–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groeneveld, S. (2016). Het belang van bureaucratie: Omgaan met ambivalentie in publiek management. Inaugural lecture (2016, May 27). Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 241(1), 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2014). Prevention at the front line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts. Public Management Review, 16(4), 447–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol and Chicago, IL: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamoche, K., Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2003). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond the jazz metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. W. H., Fryxell, G. E., & van Rooij, B. (2009). Changes in enforcement styles among environment officials in China. Environment and Planning A, 41(11), 2706–2723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, K. (2013). Grid-group cultural theory and the causal mechanism approach as requisite partners: Explaining enforcement decisions in West European labor inspection. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(4), 416–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J. (2007). Regulatory regimes and accountability. Regulation & Governance, 1, 8–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., & Winter, S. (1999). Regulatory enforcement and compliance: Examining Danish agro-environmental policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(4), 625–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., & Winter, S. (2000). Reconsidering styles of regulatory enforcement: Patterns in Danish agro-environmental inspection. Law & Policy, 22(2), 143–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(S1), S16–S23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M. J. (2011). Beyond markets: Sociology, street-level bureaucracy, and the management of the public sector. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pires, R. R. C. (2011). Beyond the fear of discretion: Flexibility, performance, and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaphorst, N. (2017). Uncertainty in bureaucracy: Toward a sociological understanding of frontline decision making (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from https://repub.eur.nl/pub/102300/.

  • Raaphorst, N. (2018). How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaphorst, N., & Groeneveld, S. (2018). Double standards in frontline decision making: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration & Society, 50(8), 1175–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Raaphorst, N., Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Do tax officials use double standards in evaluating citizen-clients? A policy-capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials. Public Administration, 96(1), 134–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & de 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, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schott, C., Van Kleef, D., & Noordegraaf, M. (2016). Confused professionals? Capacities to cope with pressures on professional work. Public Management Review, 18(4), 583–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Six, F. (2013). Trust in regulatory relations. Public Management Review, 15(2), 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., Van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2004). “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 552–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Nadine Raaphorst

Authors
  1. Nadine Raaphorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Raaphorst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Steven Van de Walle

  2. Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Nadine Raaphorst

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Raaphorst, N. (2019). Studying Uncertainty in Decision Making by Street-Level Inspectors. In: Van de Walle, S., Raaphorst, N. (eds) Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04058-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation