Conclusions

Conflict in decision making and variation in public administration outcomes in Italy during the COVID‐19 crisis

“…This discretion, stemming from the inability of the central government to adopt clear, unambiguous rules, showed in the exercise of the administrative tasks related to the organization of trials and brought about a great variation between policy implementation outcomes, which in some cases gave rise to the discontent of the stakeholders involved in the management of trials, due, in particular, to the uncertainty regarding the practical requirements involved for both lawyers and citizens, as well as to the uneven treatment of participants. As a possible solution to the tensions inherent in the centralization–discretion dilemma, a “balanced combination of both centralization and empowerment” (Svedin, 2011a: 242 recalling the proposal elaborated by Boin & Nieuwenburg, 2011) was suggested in the past and seems to apply to our case study with regard to the relationship between the authorities involved in the justice administration system, as well. Administrative discretion is unavoidable and potentially beneficial to policy outcomes.…”

“…While centralization is what normally occurs during a crisis, it is not always considered a suitable option to shape crisis management efforts, since the simultaneous involvement of the central government and local (regional and municipal) authorities seems more effective in dealing with the evolution of a crisis in different territorial units within a country. Similarly, an (excessive) empowerment of bureaucrats without adequate central guidance can result in undesirable behavior or decisional paralysis, because in such situations public servants will have to concentrate their energies on boundary management to avoid being overwhelmed by situational complexities (Boin & Nieuwenburg, 2011; Svedin, 2011a).…”