哪些客户值得使用自由裁量权?分析荷兰街头官僚在跨部门环境中讲故事的做法

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Social Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1017/s0047279424000199
Jonathan Berg, Lieke Oldenhof, Kim Putters, Jeroen van Wijngaarden
{"title":"哪些客户值得使用自由裁量权?分析荷兰街头官僚在跨部门环境中讲故事的做法","authors":"Jonathan Berg, Lieke Oldenhof, Kim Putters, Jeroen van Wijngaarden","doi":"10.1017/s0047279424000199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multiple welfare states are re-emphasising the need for street-level bureaucrats’ (SLBs) discretion to stimulate responsive service provision. However, little is known about how SLBs with diverse backgrounds in inter-departmental settings deliberate what it means to use discretion well when different rules, eligibility criteria, and interpretations apply to a client. We address this gap by investigating the stories that participants of a Dutch policy experiment told each other to justify which clients should be granted a flexible interpretation of entitlement categories amid scarcity. We found that ‘caretakers’ used the ‘victim of circumstances’ and ‘good citizen’ plot-type to convince ‘service providers’ that the use of discretion was the right thing to do, whereas the latter used the ‘not needy enough’ or ‘the irresponsible citizen’ plot-type for contestation. Our analysis shows that storytelling helped SLBs to make sense of and bring cohesion to complex situations. Moreover, the analysis shows how stories can have a strong emotional appeal and create a sense of urgency to act collectively, yet can also create divisions and opposition among SLBs. As such, storytelling influences how SLBs think and feel about the client, themselves, and each other, and influences how discretion is used at the front-line of public policy.","PeriodicalId":51438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which client is worthy of using discretion? Analysing storytelling practices of Dutch street-level bureaucrats in inter-departmental settings\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Berg, Lieke Oldenhof, Kim Putters, Jeroen van Wijngaarden\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0047279424000199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multiple welfare states are re-emphasising the need for street-level bureaucrats’ (SLBs) discretion to stimulate responsive service provision. However, little is known about how SLBs with diverse backgrounds in inter-departmental settings deliberate what it means to use discretion well when different rules, eligibility criteria, and interpretations apply to a client. We address this gap by investigating the stories that participants of a Dutch policy experiment told each other to justify which clients should be granted a flexible interpretation of entitlement categories amid scarcity. We found that ‘caretakers’ used the ‘victim of circumstances’ and ‘good citizen’ plot-type to convince ‘service providers’ that the use of discretion was the right thing to do, whereas the latter used the ‘not needy enough’ or ‘the irresponsible citizen’ plot-type for contestation. Our analysis shows that storytelling helped SLBs to make sense of and bring cohesion to complex situations. Moreover, the analysis shows how stories can have a strong emotional appeal and create a sense of urgency to act collectively, yet can also create divisions and opposition among SLBs. As such, storytelling influences how SLBs think and feel about the client, themselves, and each other, and influences how discretion is used at the front-line of public policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279424000199\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279424000199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多个福利国家都在再次强调,需要由街道一级的官员(SLBs)行使自由裁量权,以促进提供反应迅速的服务。然而,对于跨部门背景的基层官员在不同的规则、资格标准和解释适用于客户时,如何斟酌使用好自由裁量权的意义,却知之甚少。为了填补这一空白,我们调查了荷兰一项政策实验的参与者相互讲述的故事,以证明在物资匮乏的情况下,哪些客户应被灵活解释其权利类别。我们发现,"照顾者 "使用 "环境的受害者 "和 "好公民 "情节类型来说服 "服务提供者 "使用自由裁量权是正确的做法,而后者则使用 "不够需要 "或 "不负责任的公民 "情节类型来提出质疑。我们的分析表明,讲故事有助于帮助 SLB 理解复杂的情况,并使之具有凝聚力。此外,我们的分析还表明,故事可以产生强烈的情感吸引力,产生集体行动的紧迫感,但同时也会在可持续发展机构中造成分歧和对立。因此,讲故事影响了 SLB 对客户、自身以及彼此的看法和感受,也影响了在公共政策第一线如何使用自由裁量权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Which client is worthy of using discretion? Analysing storytelling practices of Dutch street-level bureaucrats in inter-departmental settings
Multiple welfare states are re-emphasising the need for street-level bureaucrats’ (SLBs) discretion to stimulate responsive service provision. However, little is known about how SLBs with diverse backgrounds in inter-departmental settings deliberate what it means to use discretion well when different rules, eligibility criteria, and interpretations apply to a client. We address this gap by investigating the stories that participants of a Dutch policy experiment told each other to justify which clients should be granted a flexible interpretation of entitlement categories amid scarcity. We found that ‘caretakers’ used the ‘victim of circumstances’ and ‘good citizen’ plot-type to convince ‘service providers’ that the use of discretion was the right thing to do, whereas the latter used the ‘not needy enough’ or ‘the irresponsible citizen’ plot-type for contestation. Our analysis shows that storytelling helped SLBs to make sense of and bring cohesion to complex situations. Moreover, the analysis shows how stories can have a strong emotional appeal and create a sense of urgency to act collectively, yet can also create divisions and opposition among SLBs. As such, storytelling influences how SLBs think and feel about the client, themselves, and each other, and influences how discretion is used at the front-line of public policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Policy carries high quality articles on all aspects of social policy in an international context. It places particular emphasis upon articles which seek to contribute to debates on the future direction of social policy, to present new empirical data, to advance theories, or to analyse issues in the making and implementation of social policies. The Journal of Social Policy is part of the "Social Policy Package", which also includes Social Policy and Society and the Social Policy Digest. An online resource, the Social Policy Digest, was launched in 2003. The Digest provides a regularly up-dated, fully searchable, summary of policy developments and research findings across the whole range of social policy.
期刊最新文献
Adapting to an older workforce: health and the (non) response of employers in an era of insecurity Advancing a healthy housing policy agenda: how do policy makers problematise housing-related health issues? An intersectional feminist analysis of compulsory income management in Australia Did the COVID-19 pandemic fuel public support for social protection? Universal Credit: administrative burdens of automated welfare
×
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