IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1388-1405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How networks among frontline offices influence regulatory enforcement: Diffusion and justification of interpretation of risk

Author

Listed:
  • Ayako Hirata

Abstract

Street‐level interpretation and enforcement are critical to defining the meaning of law. To understand street‐level regulatory decisions, prior studies have highlighted internal office conditions, neglecting the influence that peer offices can have. This study examines the role of horizontal inter‐office interaction among frontline offices and illustrates how and under what conditions it shapes the meaning of law. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative data on Japan's Soil Contamination Countermeasures Act, this study reveals that inter‐office interaction occurs within fixed groups and comes to shape shared interpretations of law that regulators believe are legally valid. This implies that under legal ambiguity, inter‐office interactions develop institutionalized notions of appropriateness and reinforce the perception of legal consistency, which bolster the legitimacy of enforcement. Although peer office networks encourage convergence on the interpretation of law, because of their clustered structure, legal meanings develop differently across various groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayako Hirata, 2021. "How networks among frontline offices influence regulatory enforcement: Diffusion and justification of interpretation of risk," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1388-1405, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1388-1405
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12311?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. David P. Carter, 2017. "Role perceptions and attitudes toward discretion at a decentralized regulatory frontline: The case of organic inspectors," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 353-367, December.
    2. Julia Black, 2008. "Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 137-164, June.
    3. Lo, Carlos W. H. & Fryxell, Gerald E., 2003. "Enforcement Styles Among Environmental Protection Officials in China," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-115, January.
    4. Nadine Raaphorst, 2018. "How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 485-502, April.
    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. Ifie, Kemefasu & Mousavi, Sahar & Xie, Junyi, 2023. "Enforcement of service rules by frontline employees: A conceptual model and research propositions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Daniel Fitzpatrick & Rebecca Monson, 2022. "Property rights and climate migration: Adaptive governance in the South Pacific," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 519-535, April.
    3. Wang, Jie & Wang, Wanwan & Yuan, Fang, 2023. "Air pollution and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 570-586.
    4. Cyril Benoît, 2021. "Politicians, regulators, and regulatory governance: The neglected sides of the story," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 8-22, November.
    5. Xuehua Zhang, 2016. "Judicial enforcement deputies: Causes and effects of Chinese judges enforcing environmental administrative decisions," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 29-43, March.
    6. Kyle S. Herman, 2024. "Intermediaries and complexity: assessing emissions-based governance in the European Union’s EU-ETS," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 539-564, December.
    7. Gillian K. Hadfield & Jack Clark, 2023. "Regulatory Markets: The Future of AI Governance," Papers 2304.04914, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    8. Maayan Davidovitz & Nissim Cohen, 2022. "Alone in the campaign: Distrust in regulators and the coping of front‐line workers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1005-1021, October.
    9. Katarína Šipulová & Samuel Spáč & David Kosař & Tereza Papoušková & Viktor Derka, 2023. "Judicial Self‐Governance Index: Towards better understanding of the role of judges in governing the judiciary," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 22-42, January.
    10. Maria Lee, 2022. "Brexit and the Environment Bill: The Future of Environmental Accountability," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(S2), pages 119-127, April.
    11. Nadine Arnold, 2022. "Accountability in transnational governance: The partial organization of voluntary sustainability standards in long‐term account‐giving," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 375-391, April.
    12. Gorwa, Robert, 2024. "The Politics of Platform Regulation: How Governments Shape Online Content Moderation," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 299876, March.
    13. Stefan Renckens & Graeme Auld, 2022. "Time to certify: Explaining varying efficiency of private regulatory audits," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 500-518, April.
    14. Yanshuang Zhang, 2017. "Digital Environmentalism: A Case Study of PM2.5 Pollution Issue in Chinese Social Media," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(1), pages 76-93, March.
    15. Tony Porter & Hina Rani, 2024. "Legitimacy and space in the use of technologies for environmental and social governance: The cases of human trafficking and COVID-19 contact tracing," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(5), pages 725-741, August.
    16. Mark Dawson & Adina Maricut‐Akbik, 2023. "Accountability in the EU's para‐regulatory state: The case of the Economic and Monetary Union," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 142-157, January.
    17. Josefina Erikson & Oscar L. Larsson, 2022. "Beyond client criminalization: Analyzing collaborative governance arrangements for combatting prostitution and trafficking in Sweden," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 818-835, July.
    18. Sheila Killian & Philip O'Regan & Ruth Lynch & Martin Laheen & Dionysios Karavidas, 2022. "Regulating havens: The role of hard and soft governance of tax experts in conditions of secrecy and low regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 722-737, July.
    19. Hervé Kohler & Christine Pochet & Anne Le Manh, 2021. "Auditors as intermediaries in the endogenization of an accounting standard: The case of IFRS 15 within the telecom industry," Post-Print hal-03337420, HAL.
    20. Yugank Goyal, 2022. "Responsibilization through regulatory intermediaries in informal markets: Examining the governance of prostitution in India," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 858-874, July.

    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:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1388-1405. 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.