Understanding how decision-makers practice discretion in the context of the Habitual Residence Condition in the Republic of Ireland

Abstract

This paper seeks to gain a greater understanding of how decision-makers practice discretion in the context of the Habitual Residence Condition, an additional criterion for eligibility to social assistance payments in the Republic of Ireland. The paper identifies two approaches to using discretion: nomocratic and telocratic, with both largely emerging as a result of specific structural and cultural conditions that exist within the organisations concerned, and directly impacting the decision-making practices of public servants. Some decision-makers are found to be happy to make discretionary decisions, while others struggle, resist and protest against the deployment of discretion in the provision of social assistance, instead arguing for rigid rules that can be applied to all welfare applicants.

Framing and Shaming: The 2017 Welfare Cheats, Cheat Us All Campaign

“…A belief that the strict control of clients acts as an anti-fraud measure has been embedded in the organisational culture of welfare institutions globally. As Ryan (2017) revealed in her research with welfare staff in Ireland, the rhetoric around welfare fraud is so deeply ingrained into decision-makers’ everyday interactions with clients, that a proportion of them become overly vigilant and investigate ‘suspects’ even when this is not part of their job description. Such sentiments among decision-makers in welfare institutions are particularly problematic in the context of discretionary decision-making where welfare staff have the liberty to act in line with what they perceive is fair.…”

“…Such sentiments among decision-makers in welfare institutions are particularly problematic in the context of discretionary decision-making where welfare staff have the liberty to act in line with what they perceive is fair. In such contexts, individual perceptions as opposed to state regulation may determine a person’s ability to access welfare support (Ryan, 2017; Ryan and Power, 2020) and initiatives such as the ‘welfare cheats’ campaign further ‘legitimises’ control, surveillance and suspicion of welfare recipients as potential fraudsters.…”