Understanding the Regulatory Thicket: Interactions Among State Environmental Regulators and Regulatees

Pautz, Michelle C.; Rinfret, Sara R.; Rorie, Melissa

doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1076002

Cited by 8 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing body of scholarship addresses these cooperative aspects, which are central components of the facilitation dimension and, more specifically, the relationship that forms because of it during enforcing encounters between the streetlevel bureaucrat and those they regulate (e.g. Ayres and Braithwaite, 1995;Pautz and Wamsley, 2012;Pautz et al, 2017). There is, indeed, growing evidence that a facilitative attitude fosters trust and cooperation (Pautz, 2009;Pautz and Wamsley, 2012) and, in that way, obedience (see Pautz et al, 2017).…”

Section: Conceptualizing Enforcement Stylementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bureaucrat and citizen interact only on occasions, and interactions between the same citizen and the same bureaucrat are rare (Baldwin et al, 2012;Black, 2010;Boyne et al, 2002). There will, thus, be little opportunity for the bureaucrats to adequately communicate cooperative intentions or form a long-lasting relationship (see Mascini and Van Wijk, 2009;Pautz et al, 2017). An example of this type of encounter is between conductors of public transport and citizens.…”

Section: De Boermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

Boer

2020

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the intended and unintended effects of street-level bureaucrats' enforcement style. More specifically, it answers to what extent street-level bureaucrats' enforcement style affects citizens' obedience (i.e. intended effect) during face-to-face encounters and willingness to publicly shame bureaucrats (i.e. unintended effect). Building on insights from street-level enforcement and the social interactionist theory of coercive actions, a trade-off is theorized between the effect of enforcement style on citizens' on-the-spot obedience and on public shaming. Results of an experiment (n ¼ 318) and replication (n ¼ 311) in The Netherlands reveal that (1) neither the legal nor facilitation dimension has an effect on on-the-spot obedience; (2) the legal dimension does not affect public shaming but (3) the facilitation decreases it. These findings are robust across both the experiment and replication.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing Enforcement Stylementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: De Boermentioning

confidence: 99%

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

Boer

2020

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Micro-level regulatory interactions have also been explored in more recent studies that straddle the regulation-criminology divide, and engage with the attitudinal components of regulatory interaction as a driver of offending behavior (Rorie 2015; van Wingerde 2016;Pautz et al 2017). This suggests that there is no "blindness" to agency within regulation and governance scholarship; rather that attention has tended to focus on the architecture and arrangement of regulatory systems than on the subjective experiences and social interactions that motivate compliance and noncompliance.…”

Section: Issues Of Agency and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Almond

Erp

2018

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.

show abstract

“…A shift is remarkable over time: whereas it was formerly assumed that citizens or firms can only be motivated to comply with regulations by use of coercion, motivation is now considered as a much more complex phenomenon downsizing the relative importance of coercive approaches and favouring more cooperative approaches (Pautz, Rinfret, and Rorie 2017). Hence, the interest in which individual-and organizationallevel factors foster cooperation among regulator and regulatees is growing (Nielsen 2016;Pautz, Rinfret, and Rorie 2017).…”

Section: State Of the Art Of Research Into Interaction Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, it is an ongoing debate what motivates clients to partake in policy interventions and comply with regulations and how this motivation can be affected by the street-level workers (see e.g. Schneider and Ingram 1990;Le Grand 1997;Wright 2012;Pautz, Rinfret, and Rorie 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction styles of street-level workers and motivation of clients: a new instrument to assess discretion-as-used in the case of activation of jobseekers

Parys

Struyven

2018

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a re-conceptualization and a measurement instrument for street-level workers' interaction styles. Interaction styles are a relevant lens giving insight into how discretion is used and how street-level behaviour affects clients' motivation and engagement. The re-conceptualization builds on a revision of May and Winter's interaction style concept from the perspective of the psychological self-determination theory. Data from 349 caseworkers of the Flemish employment service were collected via an online survey and analysed with factor and latent class analysis. Findings support a four-dimensional interaction style concept and reveal seven types of caseworkers along these dimensions.

show abstract

Understanding the Regulatory Thicket: Interactions Among State Environmental Regulators and Regulatees

Cited by 8 publications

References 29 publications

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Interaction styles of street-level workers and motivation of clients: a new instrument to assess discretion-as-used in the case of activation of jobseekers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About