Street-level bureaucrats implementing public policies have a certain degree of autonomy – or discretion – in their work. Following Lipsky, discretion has received wide attention in the policy implementation literature. However, scholars have not developed theoretical frameworks regarding the effects of discretion, which were then tested using large samples. This study therefore develops a theoretical framework regarding two main effects of discretion: client meaningfulness and willingness to implement. The relationships are tested using a survey among 1,300 health care professionals implementing a new policy. The results underscore the importance of discretion. Implications of the findings and a future research agenda is shown.
Keywords: Discretion; public policy; policy implementation; street-level bureaucracy; quantitative analysis
INTRODUCTION
In his book Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services, Michael Lipsky ([29]) analysed the behaviour of front-line staff in policy delivery agencies. Lipsky refers to these front-line workers as #39;street-level bureaucrats#39;. These are public employees who interact directly with citizens and have substantial discretion in the execution of their work (1980, p. 3). Examples are teachers, police officers, general practitioners, and social workers.
These street-level bureaucrats implement public policies. However, street-level bureaucrats have to respond to citizens with only a limited amount of information or time to make a decision. Moreover, very often the rules the street-level bureaucrats have to follow do not correspond to the specific situation of the involved citizen. In response, street-level bureaucrats develop coping mechanisms. They can do that because they have a certain degree of discretion– or autonomy – in their work (Lipsky [29], p. 14). Following the work of Lipsky, the concept of discretion has received wide attention in the policy implementation literature (Brodkin [ 6]; Buffat [ 8]; Hill and Hupe [19]; Sandfort [51]; Tummers et al. [58]; Vinzant et al. [61]).
However, scholars have not yet developed theoretical frameworks regarding the effects of discretion, which were subsequently tested using large-scale quantitative approaches (Hill and Hupe [19]; O#39;Toole [41]). This study aims to fill this gap by developing a theoretical framework regarding two effects of discretion.
The first effect, which is often noted, is that a certain amount of discretion can increase the meaningfulness of a policy for clients (Palumbo et al. [43]). An example can clarify this. A teacher could adapt the teaching method to the particular circumstances of the pupil, such as his/her problems with long-term reading, but ease when discussing the material in groups. The teacher could devote more attention to the pupil#39;s reading difficulties, thereby providing a more balanced development. More generally, it is argued that when street-level bureaucrats have a certain degree of discretion, this will make the policy more meaningful for the clients. Client meaningfulness can thus be considered a potential effect of discretion. Here, we note that client meaningfulness is highly related to concepts such as client utility or usefulness.
Furthermore, it can be argued that providing street-level bureaucrats discretion increases their willingness to implement the policy (Meyers and Vorsanger [39]; Sandfort [51]). Tummers ([56]) showed this effect while studying #39;policy alienation#39;, a new concept for understanding the problems of street-level bureaucrats with new policies. One mechanism underlying this relationship between discretion and willingness to implement seems to be that a certain amount of discretion increases the (perceived) meaningfulness for clients, which in turn enhances their willingness to implement this policy (Hill and Hupe [19]; Lipsky [29]). This is expected as street-level bureaucrats want to make a difference to their clients#39; lives when implementing a policy (Maynard-Moody and Musheno [32]). Hence, when street-level bureaucrats perceive that they have discretion, they feel that they are better able to help clients (more perceived client meaningfulness), which in turn increases their willingness to implement the policy. This is known as a mediation effect. This effect is often implicitly argued, and has yet to be studied empirically.
Based on this rationale the central research question is: To what extent does discretion influence client meaningfulness and willingness to implement public policies, and does client meaningfulness mediate the discretion-willingness relationship?
This brings us to the outline of this article. We will first develop a theoretical framework, outlining the relationships between discretion, client meaningfulness, and willingness to implement. The #39;Methods#39; section describes the operationalization of the concepts and research design, which is based on a Dutch nationwide survey among 1,300 psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists implementing a new reimbursement policy. The #39;Results#39; section shows descriptive statistics and discusses the hypotheses. We conclude by discussing the contribution of this article to policy implementation literature with a particular emphasis on the i
摘要
实施公共政策的街头官僚在工作中具有一定程度的自主权或自由裁量权。在利普斯基之后，自由裁量权在政策实施文献中受到广泛关注。然而，学者们尚未制定关于自由裁量权影响的理论框架，然后使用大样本进行测试。因此，本研究提出了一个关于自由裁量权的两个主要影响的理论框架：客户意义和实施意愿。通过对实施新政策的1300名医疗保健专业人员的调查对这些关系进行测试。结果强调了自由裁量权的重要性。显示了调查结果和未来研究议程的含义。
关键词：自由裁量权;公共政策;政策实施;街头官僚机构;定量分析
介绍
在他的书“街头级官僚机构：公共服务中的个人困境”中，Michael Lipsky（[29]）分析了政策交付机构中一线员工的行为。利普斯基将这些一线工人称为“街头官僚”。这些是公职人员，他们直接与公民互动，并在执行工作方面拥有相当大的自由裁量权（1980年，第3页）。例如教师，警察，全科医生和社会工作者。
这些街头官僚实施公共政策。然而，街头官僚必须回答公民只有有限的信息或时间做出决定。此外，街头官僚必须遵循的规则往往与所涉及的公民的具体情况不符。作为回应，街头官僚制定了应对机制。他们可以这样做，因为他们在工作中有一定程度的自由裁量权或自主权（Lipsky [29]，第14页）。在利普斯基的工作之后，自由裁量权的概念在政策实施文献中受到广泛关注（布罗德金[6];Buffat [8];Hill和Hupe [19];Sandfort [51];Tummers等。[58];Vinzant等人。[61]）。
然而，学者尚未制定关于自由裁量权影响的理论框架，随后使用大规模定量方法进行了测试（Hill和Hupe [19]; O#39;Toole [41]）。本研究旨在通过建立关于自由裁量权的两种影响的理论框架来填补这一空白。
经常注意到的第一个影响是，一定程度的自由裁量权可以增加客户政策的意义（Palumbo等[43]）。一个例子可以澄清这一点。教师可以根据学生的特殊情况调整教学方法，例如他/她长期阅读的问题，但在小组讨论材料时要轻松。教师可以更多地关注学生的阅读困难，从而提供更均衡的发展。更一般地说，有人认为，当街头官僚具有一定程度的自由裁量权时，这将使政策对客户更有意义。因此，客户意义可被视为自由裁量权的潜在影响。在这里，我们注意到客户的意义与客户效用或实用性等概念高度相关。
此外，可以说，提供街头官僚自由裁量权会增加他们实施政策的意愿（Meyers和Vorsanger [39]; Sandfort [51]）。Tummers（[56]）在研究“政策异化”时表现出这种效应，这是一种用新政策来理解街头官僚问题的新概念。酌情决定与实施意愿之间的这种关系的一个机制似乎是，一定程度的自由裁量权增加了客户的（感知的）意义，这反过来又增强了他们实施这一政策的意愿（Hill和Hupe [19]; Lipsky [29] ]）。这是预期的，因为街头官僚希望在实施政策时能够改变客户的生活（Maynard-Moody和Musheno [32]）。因此，当街头官僚认为他们有自由裁量权时，他们认为他们能够更好地帮助客户（更能感知客户意义），从而增加他们实施政策的意愿。这被称为中介效应。这种影响经常被含蓄地论证，并且尚未经验地进行研究。
基于这一理论基础，中心研究问题是：自由裁量权在多大程度上影响客户意义和实施公共政策的意愿，客户意义是否可以调解自由裁量权意愿关系？
这将我们带回到本文的大纲。我们将首先建立一个理论框架，概述自由裁量权，客户意义和实施意愿之间的关系。“方法”部分描述了概念和研究设计的运作，该概念和研究设计基于荷兰全国范围内的1300名心理学家，精神病学家和心理治疗师实施新的报销政策的调查。“结果”部分显示描述性统计数据并讨论假设。最后，我们讨论了本文对政策实施文献的贡献，特别强调了街头官僚自由裁量权的重要性。
理论框架
自由裁量权的背景
本文侧重于街头官僚在政策实施过程中的自由裁量权。由于文献的丰富性和自由裁量权概念的内在困难（例如对这些解释的不同解释以及对这些解释的批评），我们将仅提供自由裁量权一词的简短概述（详细概述，见埃文斯（ [13]），Hill和Hupe（[19]），Lipsky（[29]），Maynard-Moody和Portillo（[35]），Meyers和Vorsanger（[39]），Saetren（[50]）和Winter （[63]））。对于最近对自由裁量权的批评，请参见Maynard-Moody和Musheno（[33]）。
埃文斯（[13]）指出，对于员工来说，自由裁量权可以被视为他或她在特定背景下可以行使的自由程度。与此相关的，戴维斯（[9], p.4）声明“公职人员在其权力的有效限制允许他自由选择可能的行动或无所作为的过程中有自由裁量权”（参见Vinzant等[61]）。利普斯基（[29]）更专注于街头官僚的自由裁量权。他将自由裁量权视为街头官僚在决定制裁的种类，数量和质量以及政策实施过程中的奖励方面的自由（另见Hill和Hupe [19]; Tummers [57]）。然后，我们将自由裁量权定义为街头官僚在制定制裁的种类，数量和质量方面的自由，以及在实施政策时提供的奖励;例如，警察在多大程度上体验到他们自己决定是否要当场罚款？教师在多大程度上认为他们可以决定什么以及如何教导学生关于人类发展的进化，即进化论或创造论（Berkman和Plutzer [3])?
从前一段可以看出，我们专注于经验丰富的自由裁量权。这是基于Lewin（[28]）的概念，即人们的行为基于他们对现实的看法，而不是基于现实本身（Thomas Theorem）。街头级官僚可能在同一政策中经历不同程度的自由裁量权，例如，（a）他们对规则的漏洞有更多的了解，（b）他们的组织对政策的操作有所不同，（c）他们有更好的与他们的经理的关系使他们能够根据情况调整政策，或者（d）街头官僚的人格更加遵守规则或反叛（Brehm and Hamilton [5];Prottas [48]）。
在自上而下和自下而上的政策实施方法中，自由裁量权的概念很重要（DeLeon和DeLeon [11]; Hill和Hupe [19]）。从自上而下的角度来看，自由裁量权往往不受欢迎（戴维斯[9];波尔斯基[45]）。自由裁量权主要被视为街头官僚用来追求自己的私人目标的可能性。这可能会影响政策方案以消极方式实施，从而破坏计划的有效性和民主合法性（Brehm and Gates [4]).为了解决这个问题，通常会建立控制机制以实现合规。
在自下而上的角度来看，自由裁量权的评估方式不同。为了在特定情况下部署一般规则，规则和规范，自由裁量被认为是不可避免的，这有助于提高政策方案的有效性和对方案的民主支持。此外，鉴于时间，金钱和其他可用资源有限以及必须实施的大量规则，规则和规范，街道级官僚在他们所被给予的特定的环境中能够优先考虑适用的规则是非常重要的。（布罗德金[6];Maynard-Moody和Musheno [32];Maynard-Moody和Portillo [35]）。
从自上而下和自下而上的角度来看，可以认为，自由裁量权对于作为客户的公民具有不同的含义。从自上而下的角度来看，自由裁量权可能会损害公民的地位，因为街头官僚对政
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
