When context already constrains discretion, further routinization can improve outcomes.

Evidence

Rules may actually be an impediment to supervision. They may be so voluminous and contradictory that they can only be enforced or invoked selectively. In most public welfare departments, regulations are encyclopedic, yet at the same time, they are constantly being changed. With such rules adherence to anything but the most basic and fundamental precepts of eligibility cannot be expected. Police behavior is so highly specified by statutes and regulations that policemen are expected to invoke the law selectively. They could not possibly make arrests for all the infractions they observe during their working day. 4 (Like doctors and clergymen in many jurisdictions, they are required to be on-duty and ready to intervene even during their off-duty hours.) Similarly, federal civil-rights compliance officers have so many mandated responsibilities in comparison to their resources that they have been free to determine their own priorities. 5 It would seem that the proliferation of rules and responsibilities is only problematically related to the degree of discretion street-level bureaucrats enjoy. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 145 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Performance measures redirect frontline discretion toward easier cases and away from hard ones — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 1205; Rule proliferation paradoxically expands rather than constrains frontline discretion — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 145; Procedural norms substitute for substantive control when outcomes are hard to specify. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 62

Broader Connections

• Rule proliferation paradoxically expands rather than constrains frontline discretion #complicates (0.82) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 145