Advertisement

Automated Discretion

  • Stavros ZouridisEmail author
  • Marlies van Eck
  • Mark Bovens
Chapter

Abstract

This contribution discusses the impact of information technology (IT) and algorithms on discretion in large-scale bureaucracies. It shows that IT has both transformed and reshuffled traditional street-level discretion. Discretion has shifted from the level of individual cases such as welfare benefits, traffic fines or construction permits to the design of IT that deals with welfare benefits, traffic fines or construction permits. Street-level discretion first became screen-level discretion and it can nowadays be framed as system-level discretion. Some recent developments even show a transformation of discretion beyond system-level discretion. Inter-organizationally connected IT, the rise of data science techniques and continuous small-scale ‘bricolage’ of the increasingly complex systems have given rise to new types of discretion. As this chapter shows these transformations of discretion in public organizations require rethinking of the constitutional and democratic embeddedness and foundation of IT-driven large-scale bureaucracies.

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1994). On organisational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Bing, J. (2005). Code, access and control. In M. Klang & A. Murray (Eds), Human rights in the digital age. London: Cavendish Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bovens M.A.P. & Zouridis, Z. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
  4. Brauneis, R. & Goodman, E.P. (2017, August 2). Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale Journal of Law & Technology. Forthcoming; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3012499;  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3012499.
  5. Breit, E. & Salomon, R. (2015). Making the technological transition: Citizens’ encounters with digital pension services. Social Policy and Administration, 49(3), 299–315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell, D., Marston, G. & Larsen, J.E. (2010). Unemployed citizen or ‘at risk’ client? Classification systems and employment services in Denmark and Australia. Critical Social Policy, 30, 384–404.Google Scholar
  7. Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information. Challenging the wisdom of systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Guilfoyle, S. (2013). Intelligent policing: How systems thinking methods eclipse conventional management Practice. Axminster: Triarchy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hayek, F. (1944). The road to serfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hupe, P., Hill, M. & Buffat, A. (Eds). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jorna, F. & Wagenaar, F.P. (2007). The ‘iron cage’ strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline. Public Administration, 85(1), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koers, A. (1990). Delphi revisited: The mythology of the lawyer’s electronic workbench. In H.W.K. Kaspersen & A. Oskamp (Eds), Amongst friends in computers and law: A collection of essays in remembrance of Guy Vandenberghe, Deventer and Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Koopmans-van Berlo, M. & de Bruijn, H. (2004). When e-government is opposed by unwilling clients; Case studies on e-enforcement. Electronic journal of e-Government, 2(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
  14. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Marston, G. (2006). Employment services in an age of e-government. Information, Communication, & Society, 9(1), 83–103.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500519555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives; Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. OECD. (2016). Technologies for better tax administration: A practical guide for revenue bodies. Paris.Google Scholar
  18. Powles, J. (2017, December 20). New York City’s bold, flawed attempt to make algorithms accountable. The New Yorker. Elements. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/new-york-citys-bold-flawed-attempt-to-make-algorithms-accountable.
  19. Raaphorst, N. (2018). How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485–502.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1299199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ringeling, A.B. (1978). Beleidsvrijheid van ambtenaren: Het spijtoptantenprobleem als illustratie van de activiteiten van ambtenaren bij de uitvoering van beleid. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink.Google Scholar
  21. Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2017). Everybody lies: Big data, new data, and what the internet can tell us about who we really are. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. van Eck, B.M.A. (2018). Geautomatiseerde ketenbesluiten & rechtsbescherming: Een onderzoek naar de praktijk van geautomatiseerde ketenbesluiten over een financieel belang in relatie tot rechtsbescherming. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  23. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronals Press Co.Google Scholar
  24. Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, J.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Wong, W. & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-Government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297.Google Scholar
  27. Woodward, J. (1958/1975). Management and technology. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  28. WRR (De Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid). (2016). Big data in een vrije en veilige samenleving. WRR rapport 95, WRR, The Hague.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stavros Zouridis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marlies van Eck
    • 2
  • Mark Bovens
    • 3
  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.eLaw—Center for Law and Digital TechnologiesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Utrecht University School of GovernanceUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations