Inconsistent regulatory objectives may cause persistent noncompliant behavior among regulated actors. Yet, little is publicly known about when, where, and how inconsistencies get solved by regulated actors. The authors tracked the norms and interventions of multiple regulatory oversight bodies trickling down the hierarchy of three utility companies. The authors interviewed and observed managers, planners, operators, and staff studying their responses to regulatory inconsistencies from the perspective of value conflict. Patterns of coping behavior have been identified across the three companies. In conclusion, the authors argue to account for coping behavior in the regulatory mind-set and they recast how coordination may further improve the effectiveness of fragmented regulatory regimes.
AcuttM.ElliottC. (1999). Regulatory conflict? Environmental and economic regulation of electricity generation. European Environment, 9, 135-141.
2.
BardachE.KaganR. A. (2002). Going by the book. New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
3.
BlackJ. (2008). Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation & Governance, 2, 137-164.
4.
BogdanorV. (Ed.). (2005). Joined-up government. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
6.
BrunssonN. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk decisions and actions in organizations. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
7.
ChangR. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
ChristensenT.LaegreidP. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration, 67, 1059-1066.
9.
ChristensenJ. G.YesilkagitK. (2006). Delegation and specialization in regulatory administration: A comparative analysis of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 203-234). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
10.
CoenD. (2005). Business-regulatory relations: Learning to play regulatory games in European utility markets. Governance, 18, 375-398.
11.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
de BruijnH.de BruijneM.SteenhuisenB. (2008). Managing infrastructure performance: An empirical study on the use of performance management systems in two network industries. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 9, 75-91.
13.
de BruijnH.DickeW. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84, 717-735.
14.
DixitA. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: An interpretative review. Journal of Human Resources, 27, 696-728.
15.
DörnerD. (1996). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. New York, NY: Basic Books.
16.
Dutch Council for Government Policy. (2008). Infrastructures: Time to invest. Amsterdam, Netherlands: AUP.
17.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313-343.
18.
FrancoisP. (2000). ‘Public service motivation’ as an argument for government provision. Journal of Public Economics, 78, 275-299.
19.
GregoryR. (2006). Theoretical faith and practical works: De-autonomizing and joining-up in the New Zealand state sector. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 137-161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
20.
HainesF.GurneyD. (2003). The shadows of the law: Contemporary approaches to regulation and the problem of regulatory conflict. Law & Policy, 25, 350-380.
21.
HalliganJ.AdamsJ. (2004). Security, capacity and post-market reforms: Public management change in 2003. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63, 85-93.
22.
HupeP. L.HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85, 279-299.
23.
JensenM. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14, 8-21.
24.
JordanS. (2006). Situating administrative responsibility: A comparison of medieval Christian and medieval Islamic administrative thought. Public Administration, 84, 563-581.
25.
KapucuN.ArslanT.CollinsM. L. (2010). Examining intergovernmental and interorganizational response to catastrophic disasters: Toward a network-centered approach. Administration & Society, 42, 222-247.
26.
KusenbachM. (2003). Street phenomenology. The go-along as Ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4, 455-485.
27.
LaegreidP.VerhoestK.JannW. (2008). The governance, autonomy, and coordination of public sector organizations. Public Organization Review, 8, 93-96.
28.
LindblomC. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
29.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
LoyensK.MaesschalckJ. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society, 42, 66-100.
31.
MacionisJ. J.PlummerK. (1997). Sociology: A global introduction. London, England: Prentice Hall.
32.
MajoneG. (Ed.). (1996). Regulating Europe. London, England: Routledge.
33.
MartimortD. (1996). Exclusive dealing, common agency and multiprincipals incentive theory. RAND Journal of Economics, 27, 1-31.
34.
MattliW.BütheT. (2005). Accountability in accounting? The politics of private rule-making in the public interest. Governance, 18, 399-429.
35.
MillerG. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203-225.
36.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37.
MintzbergH.WatersJ. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272.
38.
PandyS. K.WrightB. E. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public manager’s role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 511-532.
39.
PollittC. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1, 34-49.
40.
PowerM. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
ReinM. (1976). Social science and public policy. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
42.
RoeE.SchulmanP. (2008). High reliability management: Operating on the edge. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
43.
SteenhuisenB. (2009). Competing public values: Coping strategies in heavily regulated utility industries (Doctoral Dissertation). Next Generation Infrastructures, Delft.
44.
StewartJ. (2006). Value conflict and policy change. Review of Policy Research, 23, 183-195.
45.
ten HeuvelhofE.De JongM.KarsM.StoutH. (2009). Strategic behaviour in network industries: A multidisciplinary approach. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
TetlockP. E. (2000). Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D.PopkinS. L. (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice and the bounds of rationality (pp. 239-263). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
ThacherD. (1999). Ties that bind? Confronting value conflict in community policing (Doctoral Dissertation). Urban Studies and Regional Planning. Boston: MIT.
48.
ThacherD. (2001). Conflicting values in community policing. Law & Society Review, 35, 765-798.
49.
ThacherD.ReinM. (2004). Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance, 17, 457-486.
50.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
51.
van EetenM. J. G.RoeE. (2002). Ecology, engineering and management: Reconciling ecosystem rehabilitation and service reliability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
van WaardenF. (2006). Werk in een wantrouwende wereld: Omvang en oorzaken van een uitdijende controle-industrie [Work in a distrustful world: size and sources of the expanding supervision-industry]. Beleid & Maatschappij, 33, 232-252.
53.
VeenemanW.DickeW.de BruijneM. (2009). From clouds to hailstorms: A policy and administrative science perspective on safeguarding public values in networked infrastructures. International Journal of Public Policy, 4, 414-434.
54.
VerhoestK.BouckaertG.PetersB. G. (2007). Janus-faced reorganization: Specialization and coordination in four OECD countries in the period 1980-2005. International Reviews of Administrative Sciences, 73, 325-348.
55.
ViscusiW. K. (1992). Fatal trade-offs: Public and private responsibilities for risk. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
WagenaarH. (2002). Value pluralism in public administration: Two perspectives on administrative morality. In JunJ. S. (Ed.), Rethinking administrative theory. The challenge of the new century (pp. 105-130). London, England: Praeger.
57.
WatermanR. W.MeierK. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 173-202.
