Is there a relation between street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style and their perception of the risk of getting blamed? This article answers this question on the basis of a survey (n = 507) among inspectors of the Netherlands Food and Product Safety Authority. We included perceived media attention on their work as a factor that might influence street-level bureaucrats’ perception of blame risk and their enforcement style. Three dimensions of enforcement style were distinguished from earlier research: legal, facilitative and accommodative. We found that when inspectors perceive more blame risk, they employ a slightly less legal style and, instead, employ a more accommodative style. Thus, they act a little less formally and less coercively (i.e. legal) and take greater account of their peers’ opinions (i.e. accommodative). However, perceived media attention did not have a significant influence on enforcement style.
Points for practitioners
1. When inspectors perceive more blame risk, they tend to pay more attention to the opinion of peers (other inspectors, supervisors, etc.).
2. Blame risk does not lead to the use of a more formal inspection style.
3. Media attention does not play an important role in enhancing the blame risk perception of inspectors.
4. This media and blame risk is less important than often found in the case of politicians. This may be connected to the fact that the work of inspectors as street-level bureaucrats is less visible to the wider public (and the media).
BaekkeskovERubinO (2017)
Information dilemmas and blame-avoidance strategies: From secrecy to lightning rods in Chinese health crises. Governance30(3): 425–443.
2.
BaumgartnerFRJonesB (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
3.
BennettWL (2009) News. The Politics of Illusion (8th edn).New York, NY:
Pearson Longman.
4.
CornerJPelsD (eds) (2003) Media and the Restyling of Politics. Consumerism, Celebrity and Cynicism.
London:
Sage.
5.
De BoerN (2019)
Street-level enforcement style: A multidimensional measurement instrument. International Journal of Public Administration42(5)380–391.
6.
De BoerNEshuisJKlijnE-H (2018)
Does disclosure of performance information influence street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style?Public Administration Review78(5): 694–704.
7.
EllermannA (2006)
Street level democracy: How immigrant bureaucrats manage public opposition. West European Politics29(2): 293–309.
8.
EsserFStrömbäckJ (eds) (2014) The Mediatization of Politics. Understanding the Transformations of Western Democracies.
New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
FieldA (2018) Discovering Statistic Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th edn).
London:
Sage.
10.
GeorgeBPandeySK (2017)
We know the yin – But where is the yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship.Review of Personnel Administration37(2): 245–270.
11.
GiladSBen-Nun BloomPAssoulineM (2018)
Bureaucrats’ processing of organizational reputation signals. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration1(1): 1–11.
12.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
13.
HillMHupeP (2009) Implementing Public Policy (2nd edn).
London:
Sage.
14.
HinterleitnerMSagerF (2015)
Avoiding blame: A comprehensive framework and the Australian home insulation program fiasco. Policy Studies Journal43(1): 139–161.
15.
HinterleitnerMSagerF (2017)
Anticipatory and reactive forms of blame avoidance: Of foxes and lions. European Political Science Review1(4): 1–20.
16.
HjarvardS (2008)
The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review29(2): 105–134.
17.
HoodC (2007)
What happens when transparency meets blame avoidance. Public Management Review9(2): 191–210.
18.
HoodC (2011) The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy and Self-Preservation in Government.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
19.
IbrahimYHowarthA (2017)
Contamination, deception and ‘othering’: The media framing of the horsemeat scandal. Social Identities23(2): 212–231.
20.
KaganRA (1994) Regulatory enforcement. In: RosenbloomDSchwartzR (eds) Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law.
New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker, pp. 383–422.
21.
KaspersonR (1992) The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework. In: KrimskySGoldingD (eds) Social Theories of Risk.
Westport, CT:
Preager, pp. 153–179.
22.
KaufmannW (2017) Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness.
New York, NY:
Transaction.
23.
KiserLR (2010)
Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review70(2): 247–257.
24.
KorthagenIKlijnEH (2014)
The mediatization of network governance: The impact of commercialized news and mediatized politics on trust and perceived network performance. Public Administration92(4): 1054–1074.
25.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service.
New York, NY:
Russel Sage Foundation.
26.
LoCWHFryxellGEVan RooijB (2009)
Changes in enforcement styles among environmental enforcement officials in China. Environment and Planning A41(11): 2706–2723.
27.
MarvelJDGirthAM (2015)
Citizen attributions of blame in third party governance. Public Administration Review76(1): 96–108.
28.
MayPJWinterS (1999)
Regulatory enforcement and compliance: Examining Danish agro‐environmental policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18(4): 625–651.
29.
MayPJWinterSC (2011) Regulatory enforcement styles and compliance. In: Parker C and Lehmann V (eds) Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 222–244.
30.
MayPJWoodRS (2003)
At the regulatory front lines: Inspectors’ enforcement styles and regulatory compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13(2): 117–139.
31.
Maynard-MoodySMushenoM (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service.
Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
32.
MazzoleniGSchulzW (1999) ‘
Mediatization’ of politics: A challenge for democracy?Political Communication16(3): 247–261.
33.
NielsenPABaekgaardM (2013)
Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Public Administration and Theory25: 545–569.
34.
OlsenAL (2017)
Responding to problems: Actions are rewarded, regardless of the outcomes. Public Management Review19(9): 1352–1364.
35.
PiatakJMohrZLelandS (2017)
Bureaucratic accountability in third-party governance: Experimental evidence of blame attribution during times of budgetary crisis. Public Administration95: 976–989.
36.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012)
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
