How do street‐level organisations adapt to a new policy framework? Evidence from a Swiss canton

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12646
Claudio Domenig, F. Sager
{"title":"How do street‐level organisations adapt to a new policy framework? Evidence from a Swiss canton","authors":"Claudio Domenig, F. Sager","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how street‐level organisations (SLO) respond to new legal framework conditions after regulatory reform. Organisational response to a changed legal framework is key to understand implementation resilience as established organisational practice may collide with new legal obligations. Our cases are four family support and child protection organisations in a Swiss canton facing new legislation. These SLO and their personnel are strongly committed to their clientele and thus cannot simply adapt to new legislation. The study shows how the organisations perceive their discretion in the implementation of the new policy framework, the accountabilities they are bound by, and the way they cope with divergent requirements and conflicting priorities given their dependence on the regulator as commissioner of their work. SLO differ in their strategies for dealing with the new legal framework depending on the economic context in which they operate, in particular if they act as mainly privately run organisations.\nMembers of street‐level organisations (SLO) are strongly committed to their clientele and thus cannot simply adapt to new legislation.\nFacing legal restrictions, SLO members aim to maintain their client‐oriented services and to exercise their discretion as far as possible.\nSLO that are administratively and financially dependent on the regulator and the service commissioners cannot ignore a new legal framework.\nSLO differ in their strategies for dealing with the new legal framework depending on the economic context in which they operate, in particular if they act as mainly privately run organisations.\n","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12646","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines how street‐level organisations (SLO) respond to new legal framework conditions after regulatory reform. Organisational response to a changed legal framework is key to understand implementation resilience as established organisational practice may collide with new legal obligations. Our cases are four family support and child protection organisations in a Swiss canton facing new legislation. These SLO and their personnel are strongly committed to their clientele and thus cannot simply adapt to new legislation. The study shows how the organisations perceive their discretion in the implementation of the new policy framework, the accountabilities they are bound by, and the way they cope with divergent requirements and conflicting priorities given their dependence on the regulator as commissioner of their work. SLO differ in their strategies for dealing with the new legal framework depending on the economic context in which they operate, in particular if they act as mainly privately run organisations. Members of street‐level organisations (SLO) are strongly committed to their clientele and thus cannot simply adapt to new legislation. Facing legal restrictions, SLO members aim to maintain their client‐oriented services and to exercise their discretion as far as possible. SLO that are administratively and financially dependent on the regulator and the service commissioners cannot ignore a new legal framework. SLO differ in their strategies for dealing with the new legal framework depending on the economic context in which they operate, in particular if they act as mainly privately run organisations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
街道组织如何适应新的政策框架?来自瑞士某州的证据
本文探讨了街道组织(SLO)在监管改革后如何应对新的法律框架条件。组织对法律框架变化的反应是理解实施复原力的关键,因为既定的组织实践可能会与新的法律义务发生冲突。我们的案例是瑞士某州面临新立法的四个家庭支持和儿童保护组织。这些 SLO 及其工作人员坚定地致力于服务客户,因此无法简单地适应新立法。研究显示了这些组织如何看待他们在实施新政策框架中的自由裁量权、他们所承担的责任,以及他们如何应对不同的要求和相互冲突的优先事项,因为他们的工作依赖于监管机构。街头组织(SLO)的成员对其客户有强烈的承诺,因此不能简单地适应新的立法。面对法律限制,街头组织成员的目标是保持其面向客户的服务,并尽可能行使其自由裁量权。在行政和财政上依赖于监管机构和服务专员的 SLO 无法忽视新的法律框架。SLO 应对新法律框架的策略各不相同,这取决于它们所处的经济环境,特别是如果它们主要是私营组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices Issue Information - TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1