 (Not) Exercising Discretion: Environmental Planning and the Politics of Blame-AvoidancePhilip Catney and John Henneberry Planning Theory & Practice, 2012, vol. 13, issue 4, 549-568 Abstract: This paper uses Lipsky's classic formulation of "street-level bureaucracy" to explore the exercise of discretion by local policy practitioners in relation to a contaminated site in England. The policy literature generally assumes that practitioners seek to expand their discretion because this allows them to shape policy responses through the application of initiative and judgement. However, discretion is linked both to the degree of organisational and task complexity and to the level of uncertainty involved with making and implementing policy decisions. Such uncertainty affects practitioners' behaviour. They may develop rules to manage uncertainty, thereby tempering discretion. And where policy options offer little prospect for claiming credit and ample opportunity for being subject to blame, policy implementers often adopt a cautious approach to decisions or avoid taking them. The paper illustrates how practitioners use non-decision-making tactics-such as diversion of responsibility and bureaucratic inertia-to minimise the potential for blame. This offers an extended interpretation of the uses of discretion by street-level bureaucrats. Date: 2012 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rptpxx:v:13:y:2012:i:4:p:549-568 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2012.728002 Access Statistics for this article Planning Theory & Practice is currently edited by Heather Campbell More articles in Planning Theory & Practice from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.