(Not) Exercising Discretion: Environmental Planning and the Politics of Blame-Avoidance

This paper uses Lipsky's classic formulation of "street-level bureaucracy" to explore the exercise of discretion by local policy practitioners in relation to a contaminated site in England. The policy literature generally assumes that practitioners seek to expand their discretion because this allows them to shape policy responses through the application of initiative and judgement. However, discretion is linked both to the degree of organisational and task complexity and to the level of uncertainty involved with making and implementing policy decisions. Such uncertainty affects practitioners' behaviour. They may develop rules to manage uncertainty, thereby tempering discretion. And where policy options offer little prospect for claiming credit and ample opportunity for being subject to blame, policy implementers often adopt a cautious approach to decisions or avoid taking them. The paper illustrates how practitioners use non-decision-making tactics-such as diversion of responsibility and bureaucratic inertia-to minimise the potential for blame. This offers an extended interpretation of the uses of discretion by street-level bureaucrats.