Advertisement

Strict Enforcement or Responsive Regulation? How Inspector–Inspectee Interaction and Inspectors’ Role Identity Shape Decision Making

  • Kim LoyensEmail author
  • Carina Schott
  • Trui Steen
Chapter

Abstract

In line with a general trend towards more responsive regulation, inspectors are expected to take inspectees’ needs and demands in account when making decisions. At the same time, inspection services increasingly apply instruments aimed at directing the inspectors’ actions. These contradictory signals can make the work of inspectors very difficult. By reviewing relevant literature, this chapter shows that not only inspectees’ behavior and characteristics, but also inspectors’ professional role identity, i.e. the way inspectors view their professional role, is critical to explain and predict decision making on the ground.

Keywords

Contradictory signals Identity theory Responsive regulation 

References

  1. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, K. P. R. (2013). Public encounters: The history and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520.Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., & Reinhart, M. (2007). Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law and Policy, 29(1), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, D. P. (2017). Role perceptions and attitudes toward discretion at a decentralized regulatory frontline: The case of organic inspectors. Regulation and Governance, 11(4), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etienne, J. (2013). Ambiguity and relational signals in regulator-regulatee relationships. Regulation and Governance, 7(1), 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Tax compliance as the result of a psychological tax contract: The role of incentives and responsive regulation. Law and Policy, 29(1), 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jilke, S., & Tummers, L. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leviner, S. (2008). An overview: A new era of tax enforcement—From ‘big stick’ to responsive regulation. Regulation and Governance, 2(3), 360–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Loyens, K. (2012). Integrity secured: Understanding ethical decision making among street-level bureaucrats in the Belgian Labor Inspection and Federal Police (Doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  13. Loyens, K., & Maesschalck, J. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration and Society, 42(1), 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mascini, P., & van Wijk, E. (2009). Responsive regulation at the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation and Governance, 3(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. May, P. J., & Wood, R. S. (2003). At the regulatory front lines: Inspectors’ enforcement styles and regulatory compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maynard-Moody, S., & Portillo, S. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In R. F. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nielsen, V. L., & Parker, C. (2009). Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement. Regulation and Governance, 3(4), 376–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raaphorst, N., & Groeneveld, S. (2018). Double standards in frontline decision making: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration and Society, 50(8), 1175–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raaphorst, N., & Loyens, K. (2018). From poker games to kitchen tables: How social dynamics affect frontline decision making. Administration and Society.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718761651.
  22. Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. (2017). A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: How public officials interpret signals and cues. Social and Policy Administration, 52(7), 1367–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robben, P. B. M. (2010). Toezicht in een glazen huis. Effectiviteit van het toezicht op de kwaliteit van de gezondheidszorg. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Rourke, F. E. (1992). Responsiveness and neutral competence in American bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & de Bont, A. (2017). Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation and Governance, 11(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schott, C. (2015). Playing a roleBut which one? How public service motivation and professionalism affect decision-making in dilemma situations (Doctoral dissertation). Leiden University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Schott, C., Van Kleef, D. D., & Steen, T. P. (2018). The combined impact of professional role identity and public service motivation on decision-making in dilemma situations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soss, J. (2005). Making clients and citizens: Welfare policy as a source of status, belief, and action. In A. L. Schneider & H. M. Ingram (Eds.), Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy (pp. 291–328). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Kleef, D., Schott, C., & Steen, T. (2015). Inspections services and inter-rater reliability: Differentiating professional role identities of Dutch veterinary inspectors. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(2), 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Kleef, D., Steen, T., & Schott, C. (2017). Informal socialization in public organizations: Exploring the impact of informal socialization on enforcement behaviour of Dutch veterinary inspectors. Public Administration.  https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12375.
  34. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westerman, P. (2013). Pyramids and the value of generality. Regulation and Governance, 7(1), 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht University, Utrecht School of Governance (USG)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KU Leuven, Public Governance InstituteLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations