Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-tvc9f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T13:27:57.277Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discretionary Decision-Making in a Changing Context of Activation Policies and Welfare Reforms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2014

JORUNN THERESIA JESSEN  and
PER ARNE TUFTE
JORUNN THERESIA JESSEN
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo University College Po.b. 4 St. Olavs Plass, NO-0130, Norway email: [email protected]
PER ARNE TUFTE
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo University College Po.b. 4 St. Olavs Plass, NO-0130, Norway email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Street-level bureaucrats are considered to be subject to bureaucratic managerial regimes and threatened by stronger regulation and a reduction in their ability to exercise control over their work. Contrary to the managerial approach, predicting curtailment of professional autonomy, theorists foretell the continuing importance of discretion in the translation of social objectives into actual service delivery. Given such opposite predictions, what is the perceived direction of change and scope for independent decision-making for front-line workers? This paper empirically investigates the contradictory hypotheses predicting continuing or declining opportunities for street-level discretion in a context of activation policies and welfare reforms. The data come from two surveys conducted among practitioners and local managers in the Norwegian employment and welfare services in 2004 and 2011. Despite managerial control and bureaucratic procedures that regulate many decisions, discretion still remains a characteristic of front-line work. Continued discretion is closely related to the implementation of activation goals and the merging of tasks and integrated services following the whole-of-government reform. The findings confirm the role of managers as key players in implementing policies at the local level. Concurrently, the discretionary power of trained social workers is decreasing and challenged by the push for uniform practices and a managerially regulated role.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 269 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Askim, J., Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L. and Lægreid, P. (2010), ‘How to assess administrative reform? Investigating the adoption and preliminary impacts of the Norwegian welfare administration reform’, Public Administration, 88: 1, 232–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aurich, P. (2011), ‘Activating the unemployed - directions and divisions in Europe’, European Journal of Social Security, 13: 3, 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, M. (2000), Care Management and Community Care: Social Work Discretion and the Construction of Policy, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Bonvin, J. M. (2008), ‘Activation policies, new modes of governance and the issue of responsibility’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M. and Zouridis, S. (2002), ‘From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control’, Public Administration Review, 62: 2,174–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffat, A. (2013), ‘Street-level bureaucracy and E-government’, Public Management Review, Online: 19 April 2013, DOI:10.1080/14719037.2013.771699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2007), ‘The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform’, Public Administration Review, 67: 6, 1059–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T., Lie, A. and Lægreid, P. (2007), ‘Still fragmented government or reassertion of the centre?’, in Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (eds.), Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms, Cornwall: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Clark, C. (2005), ‘The deprofessionalisation thesis, accountability and professional character’, Social Work and Society, 3: 2.Google Scholar
Clarke, J., Gewirtz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (eds.) (2000), New Managerialism, New Welfare?, London: Sage Publications Google Scholar
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997), The Managerial State, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Davis, K. C. (1969), Discretionary Justice: A Preliminay Inquire, Baton Rouge, LA: Lousiana State University Press.Google Scholar
De Bruijn, H. (2011), Managing Professionals, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drøpping, J. A., Hvinden, B. and Vik, K. (1991), ‘Activation policies in the Nordic countries’, in Kautto, M., Heikkilä, M., Hvinden, B., Marklund, S. and Ploug, N. (eds.), Nordic Social Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 133–58Google Scholar
Ellis, K., Davis, A. and Rummery, K. (1999), ‘Needs assessment, street-level bureaucracy and the new community care’, Social Policy and Administration, 33: 3, 262–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T. (2010), Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-level Bureaucracy, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2011), ‘Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy’, British Journal of Social Work, 41: 2, 368–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004), ‘Street level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, British Journal of Social Work, 34: 6, 871–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evetts, J. (2003), ‘The sociological analysis of professionalism: occupational change in the modern world’, International Sociology, 18: 2, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evetts, J. (2006), ‘Introduction: trust and professionalism: challenges and occupational changes’, Current Sociology, 54: 4, 515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, D. R. (2011), ‘Welfare reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?’, Social Policy and Society, 10: 4, 445–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidson, E. (2001), Professionalism: The Third Logic: On the Practice of Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, C. and Hill, M. (1993), The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Handler, J. F. (2003), ‘Social citizenship and workfare in the US and Western Europe: from status to contract’, Journal of European Social Policy, 13: 3, 229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1998), ‘Scientific management, bureau-professionalism, new managerialism: the labour process of state social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 28: 6, 839–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. and McDonald, C. (2000), ‘Post-Fordism, the welfare state and the personal social services: a comparison of Australia and Britain’, British Journal of Social Work, 30: 1, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. and White, V. (eds.) (2009), Modernising Social Work: Critical Considerations, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Healy, K. and Meagher, G. (2004), ‘The reprofessionalization of social work: collaborative approaches for achieving professional recognition’, British Journal of Social Work, 34: 2, 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjörne, E., Juhila, K. and van Nijnatten, C. (2010), ‘Negotiating dilemmas in the practices of street-level welfare work’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 19: 3, 303–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, D. (1991), ‘Knowledge, power and the shape of social work practice’, in Davies, M. (eds.), The Sociology of Social Work, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hupe, P. and Hill, M. (2007), ‘Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability’, Public Administration, 85: 2, 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvinden, B. (1994), Divided Against Itself: A study of Integration in Welfare Bureaucracy, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Hvinden, B. and Johansson, H. (eds.) (2007), Citizenship in Nordic Welfare States: Dynamics of Choice, Duties and Participation in a Changing Europe, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, C. J. (2007), Agents of the Welfare State: How Caseworkers Respond to Need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. (2001), ‘Voices from the front line: state social workers and New Labour’, British Journal of Social Work, 31: 4, 547–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemsdal, L. (2011), ‘Navet i reformprosessen: den lokale NAV-lederen som utviklingsleder’, in Andreassen, T. A. and Fossestøl, K. (eds.), NAV ved et veiskille, Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, pp.190–207 Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1991), ‘The paradox of managing discretionary workers in social welfare policy’, in Adler, M., Bell, C., Clasen, J. and Sinfield, A. (eds.), The Sociology of Social Security, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 212–28Google Scholar
Lødemel, I. (1997), The Welfare Paradox: Income Maintenance and Personal Social Services in Norway and Britain, 1946–1966, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press Google Scholar
Lødemel, I. (2001), ‘National objectives and local implementation of workfare in Norway’, in Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H., ‘An Offer You Can't Refuse’: Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 133–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, G., Larsen, J. E. and McDonald, C. (2005), ‘The active subjects of welfare reform: a street-level comparison of employment services in Australia and Denmark’, Social Work and Society 3: 2, 141–58.Google Scholar
Molander, A. and Grimen, H. (2010), ‘Understanding professional discretion’, in Svensson, L. G. and Evetts, J. (eds.), Sociology of Professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon Traditions, Gothenburg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health and Care Services (2004), En ny arbeids- og velferdsforvaltning (A New Employment and Welfare Administration), report from the Public Commission, NOU 2004: 13, Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care Services.Google Scholar
Ministry of Labour (2000), Sykefravær og uførepensjonering, et inkluderende arbeidsliv, NOU 2000:27, Oslo: Ministry of Labour.Google Scholar
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (1991–1992), Attføring og arbeid for yrkeshemmede. Sykepenger og uførepensjon, Royal Proposition No. 39 (1991–1992), Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2004–2005), Ny Arbeids- og velferdsforvaltning, Royal Proposition No. 46 (2004–2005), Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2006–2007), Arbeid, Velferd og Inkludering (Work, Welfare and Inclusion), Report to the Storting, White Paper No.9, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Røysum, A. (2012), ‘The reform of the welfare services in Norway: one office–one way of thinking’, European Journal of Social Work, 16: 5, 708–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sol, E. and Westerveld, M. (eds.), (2005), Contractualism in Employment Services: A New Form of Welfare State Governance, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Thorén, K. (2008), ‘Activation Policy in Action’: A Street-level Study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State, Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Thorén, K. H. (2009), ‘Socialt arbete och aktiveringens praktik’, in Johansson, H. and Møller, I. H. (eds.), Aktivering – arbetsmarknadspolitik og socialt arrbete i förändring, Malmö: Liber, pp. 131–56Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. (2011), ‘The local and street level production of social citizenship: the case of Dutch social assistance’, in Betzelt, S. and Bothfeld, S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 195–242.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Valkenburg, B. (2007), Making it Personal: Individualising Activation Services in the EU, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Van der Aa, P. (2012), ‘Activation work: policy programme administration or professional service provision?’, Journal of Social Policy, 41: 3, 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, V. (2009), ‘Quiet challenges? Professional practice in modernised social work’, in Harris, J. and White, V. (eds.), Modernising Social Work: Critical Considerations, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 129–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar