Understanding the Causes of Informal and Formal Discretion in the Delivery of Enterprise Policies: A Multiple Case Study

Abstract

This research investigates a relevant gap in the academic literature on enterprise policy—namely, the nature of discretion and the causes that permit it during policy implementation. We found in our case studies that the programme workers who deliver policies exerted considerable discretion. Further evidence suggests that the main influences on what we call informal discretion—discretion clearly outside programme objectives—include the design of programme evaluation and audit as well as the influence of evaluators and auditors in these processes. We also found evidence of formal discretion—discretion allowed within programme objectives—through broad and ambiguous policies and procedures. Our findings and theoretical framework illustrate how discretion cannot be so easily curtailed by the market logics and strict rules of the new public management practice. Instead, we conclude that the possibility of refraining policy statements and evaluation as a learning process, from programme successes and failures, would transform our approach to policy implementation. This would require a number of institutional and incentive changes for policy actors and the public.

Exploring the disconnect in policy implementation: A case of enterprise policy in England

“…The emphasis was placed on the 'street-level bureaucrats' to ensure delivery of enterprise policy initiatives but numerous issues hindered effective implementation (lack of formal structures for implementation, complex relationships etc.). expectations were met or whether entrepreneurs and SMEs were given appropriate support and assistance to start-up and grow (Vega et al, 2013).…”

“…Communication between the government department and the RDA was based around deliverables, with significant weight attached to quantifiable objectives. The quantitative nature of capturing the targets failed to adequately evaluate and measure the implications of the policy initiatives being delivered (Vega et al, 2013) because often it was highlighted by the RDA that:…”

The policy–practice divide and SME-friendly public procurement

“…There is now acceptance that, to varying degrees, actors are able to exercise choice over how they respond to institutional pressures, which includes not only compliance but also compromise, avoidance and outright defiance (Oliver, 1991). As a recent example of this, Vega et al, (2013) reported how officials were able to exercise informal discretion over the implementation of enterprise policy in spite of procedures in place to govern their behaviour.…”

The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: is policy formulation to blame?

“…Recent analyses suggest that it may be attributable to the ways in which policy ideas originate and develop (Dennis Jr 2011; Williams 2013). Most of the enterprise policy literature has focused on the implementation (Mole 2002;Xheneti and Kitching 2011;Vega et al 2013) and evaluation stages (Storey 2002;Bennett 2008;Lenihan 2011;Cowie 2012;Jones et al 2013). Scholars such as Storey ( , 2002 and Bennett (2008) have concentrated on how and why enterprise policy should be assessed.…”