Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Exposure to the Law: Accountability and Its Impact on Street-level Bureaucracy

  • Mark Murphy (a1) and Paul Skillen (a2)
Abstract

Little research has been conducted exploring the relationship between public-sector accountability and the law. This is a significant oversight given the potential for this relationship to cause unintended consequences around issues of liability, especially in the context of a growing litigation culture. The purpose of the current research is to explore this relationship, using qualitative studies of public-sector professionals in England. The findings of the study suggest that increasing emphasis on accountability has led to a growing magnification of legal risk in the public sector, with consequences for the ways public-sector professionals perceive their relationships with the public.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Allsop J. and Jones K. (2008) ‘Withering the citizen, managing the consumer: complaints in healthcare settings’, Social Policy and Society, 7, 2, 233–43.
Ball S. (1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structuralist Approach, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barberis P. (1998) ‘The new public management and a new accountability’, Public Administration, 76, 451–70.
Baxter H. (2011) Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Beetham D. (1996) Bureaucracy, 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bovens M. (2010) ‘Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism’, West European Politics, 33, 5, 946–67.
Bundred S. (2006) ‘The future of regulation in the public sector’, Public Money and Management, 26, 3, 181–8.
Brodkin E. (2008) ‘Accountability in street-level organizations’, International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 3, 317–36.
Brown P. and Calnan M. (2010) ‘The risks of managing uncertainty: the limitations of governance and choice, and the potential for trust’, Social Policy and Society, 9, 1, 1324.
Causer G. and Exworthy M. (1999) ‘Professionals as managers across the public sector’, in Exworthy M. and Halford S. (eds.), Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector, Buckingham: Open University Press, 83101.
Diefenbach T. (2009) ‘New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialist “enlightenment”’, Public Administration, 87, 4, 892909.
Exworthy M. and Halford S. (eds.) (1999) Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Furedi F. and Bristow J. (2012) The Social Cost of Litigation, London: Centre for Policy Studies.
Gewirtz S. (1997) ‘Post-welfarism and the reconstruction of teachers’ work in the UK’, Journal of Education Policy, 12, 4, 217–31.
Habermas J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Harrison S. and McDonald R. (2008) The Politics of Healthcare in Britain, London: Sage.
Hupe P. and Hill M. (2007) ‘Street level bureaucracy and public accountability’, Public Administration, 85, 2, 279–99.
James O. (2005) ‘The rise of regulation of the public sector in the United Kingdom’, Sociologie du Travail, 47, 323–39.
Liff R. (2014) ‘Unintended consequences of NPM drive the “bureaucracy”’, International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 8, 474–83.
Lipsky M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Maesschalck J. (2004) ‘The impact of new public management reforms on public servant's ethics: towards a theory’, Public Administration, 82, 2, 465–89.
Mendez C. and Bachtler J. (2011) ‘Administrative reform and unintended consequences: an assessment of the EU cohesion policy “audit explosion”’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 5, 746–65.
Morrell K. (2009) ‘Governance and the public good’, Public Administration, 87, 3, 538–56.
Mulgan R. (2000) ‘Accountability: an ever expanding concept?’, Public Administration, 78, 3, 555–73.
Murphy M. and Skillen P. (2015) ‘The politics of time on the front line: street level bureaucracy, professional judgement and public accountability’, International Journal of Public Administration, 38, 9, 632–41.
Ossege C. (2012) ‘Accountability: are we better off without it?’, Public Management Review, 14, 5, 585607.
Papadopoulos Y. (2010) ‘Accountability and multi-level governance: more accountability, less democracy?’, West European Politics, 33, 5, 1030–49.
Parker C. (2008) ‘The pluralisation of regulation’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 9, 2, 349–69.
Pollitt C. (2009) ‘Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget?’, Public Administration, 87, 2, 198218.
Power M. (1997) Audit Cultures: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reed D., Windish D., Levin R., Kravet S., Wolfe L. and Wright S. (2008) ‘Do fears of malpractice litigation influence teaching behaviors?’, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 20, 3, 205–11.
Riddell S. and Weedon S. (2006) ‘What counts as a reasonable adjustment? Dyslexic students and the concept of fair assessment’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 16, 1, 5773.
Travers M. (2007) The New Bureaucracy: Quality Assurance and its Critics, Bristol: Policy Press.
Tummers L. and Bekkers V. (2014) ‘Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion’, Public Management Review, 16, 4, 527–47.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Policy and Society
  • ISSN: 1474-7464
  • EISSN: 1475-3073
  • URL: /core/journals/social-policy-and-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 41 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 447 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th November 2016 - 17th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.