IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v11y2017i1p81-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanne Rutz
  • Dinah Mathew
  • Paul Robben
  • Antoinette de Bont

Abstract

Discretion used to be considered a feature of individuals, but growing literature shows that it has collective features as well. To develop an understanding of the individual and cooperative work of inspectors in using discretion and the discretionary room granted to them, we compared two inspectorates: the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in England and the Joint Inspectorate for Youth (JIY) in the Netherlands. Our analysis reveals that inspectors engage with colleagues, managers, and stakeholders to include other perspectives, gain mandate, and broaden their repertoire. At the CQC, inspectors use their discretion collectively; on their own initiative, they involve others in balancing and interpreting rules to reach judgments. At the JIY, teamwork is central and regulatory teams are granted collective discretionary room. We argue that collective work permits both responsiveness and consistency. In studying the judgments of inspectors and other street‐level bureaucrats, it is vital to look at collective work and how it combines consistency and responsiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanne Rutz & Dinah Mathew & Paul Robben & Antoinette de Bont, 2017. "Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 81-94, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:81-94
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12101
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12101?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    2. Ruthanne Huising & Susan S. Silbey, 2011. "Governing the gap : Forging safe science through relational regulation," Post-Print hal-02311930, HAL.
    3. Peter Hupe & Aurélien Buffat, 2014. "A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 548-569, May.
    4. Wrede, Sirpa & Benoit, Cecilia & Bourgeault, Ivy Lynn & van Teijlingen, Edwin R. & Sandall, Jane & De Vries, Raymond G., 2006. "Decentred comparative research: Context sensitive analysis of maternal health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 2986-2997, December.
    5. Lars Tummers & Victor Bekkers, 2014. "Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 527-547, May.
    6. Susan S. Silbey & Ruthanne Huising & Salo V. Coslovsky, 2009. "The Sociological Citizen : Recognizing Relational Interdependence in Law and Organizations," Post-Print hal-02311931, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brattström, Erik & Hellström, Tomas, 2019. "Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 240-247.
    2. Changkun Cai & Qiyao Shen & Na Tang, 2022. "Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 55-71, February.
    3. Susan S. Silbey, 2011. "The sociological citizen: Pragmatic and relational regulation in law and organizations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    6. Banerjee, Albert & Daly, Tamara & Armstrong, Pat & Szebehely, Marta & Armstrong, Hugh & Lafrance, Stirling, 2012. "Structural violence in long-term, residential care for older people: Comparing Canada and Scandinavia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 390-398.
    7. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    8. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    9. Khalid Mehmood & Yaser Iftikhar & Aamir Suhail & Adil Zia, 2024. "How high-involvement work practices, public service motivation, and employees’ commitment influence employees' proactive work behavior: evidence from China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 55-81, February.
    10. Ruthanne Huising, 2014. "The Erosion of Expert Control Through Censure Episodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1633-1661, December.
    11. Ahrum Chang, 2022. "A formal model of street-level bureaucracy," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(1), pages 6-27, February.
    12. Mohammed Salah Hassan & Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin & Norma Mansor & Hussam Al Halbusi, 2021. "An Examination of Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretion and the Moderating Role of Supervisory Support: Evidence from the Field," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Gabriela Lotta & Roberto Pires & Michael Hill & Marie Ostergaard Møller, 2022. "Recontextualizing street‐level bureaucracy in the developing world," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 3-10, February.
    14. Berrick, Jill Duerr & Dickens, Jonathan & Pösö, Tarja & Skivenes, Marit, 2018. "Care order templates as institutional scripts in child protection: A cross-system analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 40-47.
    15. Susanne Stenbacka, 2015. "Insights into Transforming Regional Gender Relations--A Call for Space-Sensitive Dialogue to Enhance Regional Learning," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7), pages 1265-1281, July.
    16. Salo Coslovsky, 2013. "Enforcing Food Quality and Safety Standards in Brazil," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 649(1), pages 122-138, September.
    17. Einat Lavee & Amit Kaplan, 2022. "Invisible work at work and the reproduction of gendered social service organizations," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 1463-1480, September.
    18. Rodrigo Canales, 2014. "Weaving Straw into Gold: Managing Organizational Tensions Between Standardization and Flexibility in Microfinance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 1-28, February.
    19. Shenghao Guo & Bo Wen & Natalie Wai‐Man Wong, 2022. "Handling in the frontline: A case study of “whistle gathering” in Beijing," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(2), pages 159-164, May.
    20. Zejin Liu & Steven Van de Walle, 2022. "The role of demonstration projects as policy instruments in the development of nonprofit organizations: Beyond instrumentality," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 233-244, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:81-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.