Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service

Abstract

Bureaucratic discretion continues to be one of a public administrator's primary powers while at the same time being one of their most controversial. Used in a positive way, bureaucratic discretion can enhance social equity; however, this practice can create administrative legitimacy dilemmas. As such, this paper conceptually discusses the theoretical position of public administrators that contributes to their engagement in legitimacy dilemmas, which is further complicated by the tenets of New Public Service. We argue that if public administrators are engaged in authentic interactions with the public and use their discretion to reflect the interests of the public, then they are engaged in truly democratic governance. We place this argument in the context of achieving social equity and highlight an avoided question in public administration. Finally, recommendations for future research are offered as a means progressing the social equity agenda in public administration.

Defining social equity in emergency management: A critical first step in the nexus

“…Even though public administration has NAPA's (2000) definition of social equity, various scholars have argued that it is not being used as a standard definition within the field itself, let alone applied to the emergency management context. Thus, the ability to achieve social equity in either discipline or profession has been lacking (Guy & McCandless, 2012; Gooden, 2015; Ensuring Equity 2021; Rivera & Knox, 2023) despite both fields' interest that date back decades.…”

“…To achieve social equity, framed in the context of justice, McInerney (2014) argues that public administrators may have to engage in actions that are counter to the citizen majority's short-term values and interests to ensure more long-term just and socially equitable governance occurs. However, these types of exercises in bureaucratic discretion arguably violate some scholars' notions of democracy (Rivera & Knox, 2023). As a result, the definition of social equity referred to more consistently throughout public administration research, and more regularly pursued, is less contrary to the status quo because it focuses more on procedural justice (Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008).…”

From noise to knowledge: Improving evidentiary standards for program efficacy to better inform public policy and management decisions

“…Studies vetted and listed for providing high‐quality “evidence‐based interventions” rarely provide sufficient information on how those interventions address needs of differing populations, or how to customize the interventions to local contexts. The absence of contextual data is unhelpful during implementation, as the street level bureaucracy literature emphasizes the important choices program managers and front‐line workers confront during implementation (Lipsky, 2010; Rivera & Knox, 2023). As noted evaluation thought leader Ray Pawson notes, in order to adopt and adapt interventions, practitioners need to know “what it is about a programme that works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects, over which duration… and why?” (Pawson, 2013, page 15).…”

Multi-agent game analysis on standardized discretion of environmental administrative penalty

“…However, some scholars hold different views. Zhang et al(2018) thought that discretionary power is executed differently and leads to different results, which is often controversial (Rivera & Knox, 2022). The penalty amount depends on the direction of the EPB's environmental preferences (Fang et al, 2020).…”