This paper seeks to gain a greater understanding of how decision-makers practice discretion in the context of the Habitual Residence Condition, an additional criterion for eligibility to social assistance payments in the Republic of Ireland. The paper identifies two approaches to using discretion: nomocratic and telocratic, with both largely emerging as a result of specific structural and cultural conditions that exist within the organisations concerned, and directly impacting the decision-making practices of public servants. Some decision-makers are found to be happy to make discretionary decisions, while others struggle, resist and protest against the deployment of discretion in the provision of social assistance, instead arguing for rigid rules that can be applied to all welfare applicants.
AltreiterCLeibetsederB (2015)
Constructing inequality: deserving and undeserving clients in Austrian social assistance offices. Journal of Social Policy44(1): 127–145.
2.
BarrettAJoyceCMaitreB (2013)
Immigrants and welfare receipt in Ireland. International Journal of Manpower,
34(2), 142–154.
3.
BoeijeH (2010) Analysis in Qualitative Research,
London:
Sage.
4.
ChaseS (2011) Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, pp.421–434.
5.
Chase SE (2005) Narrative Inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 651--679.
6.
ConsidineMDukelowF (2009) Irish Social Policy: A Critical Introduction.
Dublin:
Gill and Macmillan.
7.
Crosscare, Doras Luimní and Nasc (2012) Person or Number? Issues Faced by Immigrants Accessing Social Protection: A ‘Snapshot’ of 54 Cases Presenting to NGOs Across Ireland, Ireland: Nasc, Crosscare Migrant Project and Doras Luimní.
8.
Department of Social and Family Affairs (2004) Review of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme: Phase I Report. Available at: www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/swa_phase1.pdf [accessed 20 January 2017].
9.
Du GayP (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy.
London:
Sage Publishing.
10.
DuboisV (2010) The Bureaucrat and the Poor.
Aldershot:
Ashgate.
EvansT (2010) Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-Level Bureaucracy.
Surrey:
Ashgate Publishing.
13.
EvansT (2013)
Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work43(4): 739–758.
14.
EvansT (2014)
The moral economy of street-level policy work. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration14(2): 381–399.
15.
EvansTHarrisJ (2004)
Street-level bureaucracy, social work, and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work34(6): 871–896.
16.
FeldmanMSSkoldbergKBrownRN, et al. (2004)
Making sense of stories: a rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(2): 147–170.
17.
FogartyTJDirsmithMW (2001)
Organisational socialisation as instrument and symbol: An expanded institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly12(3): 247–266.
18.
HarmonAGarrettPM (2015)
It’s like Weber’s “iron cage”: Irish social workers’ experience of the Habitual Residence Condition (HRC). Critical Radical Social Work3(1): 35–52.
19.
HasenfeldY (2000)
Organizational forms as moral practices: the case of welfare departments. Social Service Review74(3): 329–351.
20.
HjorneEJuhilaKvan NijnattenC (2010)
Negotiating dilemmas in the practices of street-level welfare work. International Journal of Social Welfare19(3): 303–309.
21.
JensenCD (2015)
Does core task matter for decision-making? A comparative case study on whether differences in job characteristics affect discretionary street-level decision-making. Administration and Society50(8): 1–23.
22.
JessenJTTuftePA (2014) ‘
discretionary decision-making in a changing context of activation policies and welfare reforms. Journal of Social Policy43(2), 269–288.
23.
Lincoln YS and Guba E (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 163--188.
24.
LindlofT (1995) Qualitative Communication Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
25.
Lipsky M (1991) The paradox of managing discretionary workers in social welfare policy. In: Adler M (ed.) The sociology of social security. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 212--228.
26.
LipskyM (1980 and 2010) Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
Maynard-MoodySMushenoM (2003 and 2009) Cops, Teachers, and Counsellors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service.
Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
28.
Maynard-MoodySMushenoM (2012)
Social equities and inequities in practice: street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review72(1): S16–S23.
29.
McCashinA (2004) Social Security in Ireland,
Dublin:
Gill & Macmillan.
30.
MillerSE (2010)
A conceptual framework for the professional socialization of social workers. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment20(7): 924–938.
31.
MRCI (Migrant Rights Centre Ireland) (2005) Social Protection Denied: The impact of the Habitual Residency Condition on Migrant Workers.
Dublin:
Migrant Rights Centre Ireland.
32.
MurphyM (2012)
Interests, institutions and ideas: explaining Irish social security policy. Policy and Politics40(3): 347–365.
33.
OakeshottM (1975) On Human Conduct.
Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
34.
Oakeshott M (1983) The rule of law. In: Oakeshott M (ed.) On history and other essays. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 119--164.
35.
QuinnEGusciuteEBarrettA, et al. (2014) Migrant Access to Social Security and Healthcare: Policies and Practice in Ireland.
Dublin:
The Economic and Social Research Institute.
36.
RobinsonG (2003)
Technicality and indeterminacy in probation practice: a case study. British Journal of Social Work33(5), 593–610.
Ryan MM (2017) Discretion in the decision-making practices of public servants: A case study of the Habitual Residence Condition in Ireland. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Limerick, Ireland.
39.
SachwehP (2012)
The moral economy of inequality: popular views on income differentiation, poverty and wealth. Socio-Economic Review10(3): 419–445.
40.
SchuttRK (2011) Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research.
Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
41.
ScottJF (2002) The nature of social research and social knowledge. In: MarshS (ed) Theory and Practice in Sociology.
London:
Routledge, pp. 15--37.
42.
Social Welfare Appeals Office (2013--2020) Social Welfare Appeals Office. Available at: https://www.socialwelfareappeals.ie/ (accessed 26 February 2020).
TaylorT (2014)
No discretion required? Caseworker autonomy and the rules of welfare reform. Sociological Inquiry84(3): 412–434.
45.
ThomsonEP (1971)
The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteen century. Past and Present50(1): 76–136.
46.
TurnerTHaynesA (2006)
Welfare provision in boom times: Strengthening social equity in Ireland?Irish Journal of Sociology15(2): 86–100.
47.
Van MaanenJScheinEH (1978) Towards a Theory of Organisational Socialization. Working Paper 960-77.
Massachusetts:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
48.
Watkins-HayesCKovalskyE (2016) The discourse of deservingness: morality and the dilemmas of poverty relief in debate and practice. In: BradyDBurtonL (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Poverty and Society.
New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 193–220.
