Competing values in public management

The main objective of the article is to review relevant literature on (competing) public values in public management and to present a number of perspectives on how to deal with value conflicts in different administrative settings and contexts. We start this symposium with the assumption that value conflicts are prevalent, the public context can be characterized by value pluralism, and instrumental rationality does not seem to be the most useful to understand or improve value conflicts in public governance. This begs the question: what is the best way to study and manage value conflicts? The contributions to this symposium issue approach value conflicts in public governance from different perspectives, within different countries and different administrative and management systems, hoping to contribute to the debate on how to deal with important yet conflicting public values in public management, without pretending to offer a conclusive strategy or approach. This introductory article also presents and reviews the contributions to this symposium issue. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Strict enforcement or responsive regulation? How inspector–inspectee interaction and inspectors’ role identity shape decision making

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

Understanding sport clubs as sport policy implementers

The original publication is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430430802196553This article aims at developing a theoretical framework for analysing the implementation of sport policy, as it is conducted by voluntary sport clubs at grass root level. First, three options are presented and discussed: (i) a classical top-down implementation model, (ii) the governance theory of policy tools, and (iii) the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Second, the theoretical perspectives are discussed, and criticized for failing to take sufficiently into account the implementing body of sport policy, namely the voluntary sport clubs. In that respect, an alternative theoretical framework is suggested as a possible solution for analysing the implementation of sport policy; which is the translation perspective of neo-institutionalism. It stresses that, if elements of central policy influence the implementation process at the local level, it does so by the active import, interpretation and implementation of it in the local context. The autonomy of the local sport club in relation to central policy is reinforced by the fact that the activity in sport clubs is mainly done on a voluntary basi

Taking the ‘Just' Decision: Caseworkers and Their Communities of Interpretation in the Swiss Asylum Office

Decision-making in street-level bureaucracies has often been portrayed as being riddled with a practical dilemma: that of having to juggle between compassion and rigid rule-following. However, drawing on three ethnographic studies of Swiss asylum administration, we argue that often what are from the “outside” perceived as conflicting rationales of decision-making, are not experienced as such by the caseworkers themselves. Rather these different rationales are made to fit. We argue that decision-makers’ “volitional allegiance” with the office plays a crucial role thereby. For the caseworkers we encountered, decision-making is about taking “just decisions”, i.e. decisions that they consider “correct” and “fair”. We suggest that these notions of correctness and fairness are crucially influenced by their affiliations and allegiances with different “communities of interpretation” within the office