Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK:re-visiting Lipsky

Purpose – Seeks to examine how far Michael Lipsky's theory of discretion as it relates to public sector professionals as “street-level bureaucrats” is still applicable in the light of public sector reform and in particular the introduction of increased managerial control over professionals. Design/methodology/approach – The main thesis in Lipsky's work, Street-Level Bureaucracy, that street-level bureaucrats devise their own rules and procedures to deal with the dilemmas of policy implementation is linked to public sector reform over the past 25 years or so. The article differentiates between three forms of discretion, rule, task and value and assesses the extent to which these different forms of discretion have been compromised by reform. Examples are drawn principally from the literature on school teachers and social workers Findings – The findings suggest that the rule-making (hence bureaucratic) capacity of professionals at street-level is much less influential than before although it is questionable whether or not the greater accountability of professionals to management and clarity of the targets and objectives of organisations delivering public policy has liberated them from the dilemmas of street-level bureaucracy. Research limitations/implications – The work has focussed on the UK and in particular on two professions. However, it may be applied to any country which has undergone public sector reform and in particular where “new public management” processes and procedures have been implemented. There is scope for in-depth studies of a range of occupations, professional and otherwise in the UK and elsewhere. Practical implications – Policy makers and managers should consider how far the positive aspects of facilitating discretion in the workplace by reducing the need for “rule-making” to cope with dilemmas have been outweighed by increased levels of bureaucracy and the “de-skilling” of professionals. Originality/value – Lipsky's much cited and influential work is evaluated in the light of public sector reform some 25 years since it was published. The three forms of discretion identified offer the scope for their systematic application to the workplace.

Logics of marginalisation in health and social care reform:integration, choice, and provider-blind provision

The period 2010–2013 was a time of far-reaching structural reforms of the National Health Service in England. Of particular interest in this paper is the way in which radical critiques of the reform process were marginalised by pragmatic concerns about how to maintain the market-competition thrust of the reforms while avoiding potential fragmentation. We draw on the Essex school of political discourse theory and develop a ‘nodal’ analytical framework to argue that widespread and repeated appeals to a narrative of choice-based integrated care served to take the fragmentation ‘sting’ out of radical critiques of the pro-competition reform process. This served to marginalise alternative visions of health and social care, and to pre-empt the contestation of a key norm in the provision of health care that is closely associated with the notions of ‘any willing provider’ and ‘any qualified provider’: provider-blind provision.