When the law is not enough. Caseworkers’ ideas of justice in practices

Author/s Rebecca Paraciani, Tatiana Saruis
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/154 Language English
Pages 20 P. 163-182 File size 215 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2019-154009
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Drawing from Lipsky’s (1980) concept of street-level bureaucracy and the theories of justice (Rawls, 1971; Mashaw, 1983; Elster, 1992), this paper is focused on the dilemmas that social welfare services’ caseworkers face in their daily work. The field research is based on the collection and comparison of caseworkers’ narratives about complex cases. It was conducted within services located in the North and South of Europe: Bologna in Central Italy and Copenhagen in Denmark. Social work practices are analysed through caseworkers’ narratives to understand how their ideas influence the services. This study is intended to answer the following research questions: What challenges do caseworkers have to cope with? How do they manage their discretion to shape ‘fair’ decisions? What conditions and limits contribute to shaping the services’ final decisions? What principles of justice regulate the processing of cases, and thus what concrete ideas of social justice underpin the services?

Keywords: Street-level bureaucracy, principles of justice, social welfare services, storytelling approach

  1. Hupe P., Hill M., Buffat A. (2015). Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.
  2. Arts W., Gelissen J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles. Acta Sociologica, 44 (4): 283-299. DOI: 10.1177/000169930104400401
  3. Beckman S. (1990). Professionalisation: borderline authority and autonomy of work. In: Burrage M., Torstendahl R., eds., Professions in theory and history. London: Sage Pubblications.
  4. Bradley G. (2003). Administrative justice and charging for long term care. British Journal of Social Work, 33: 641-657.
  5. Brodkin E.Z. (2008). Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. Journal of Public Administration, 31: 317-36. DOI: 10.1080/01900690701590587
  6. Brodkin E.Z. (2011). Putting Street-Level Organizations First: New Directions for Social Policy and Management Research. Introduction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (2): 199-277.
  7. Brodkin E.Z., Martson G. (2013). Work and the Welfare State. Street-Level Organisation and Workfare Politics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  8. Bruner J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  9. Byman A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Denzin N., Lincoln Y. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. London: SAGE.
  11. Dubois V. (2010). The Bureaucrat and the Poor. Encounters in French Welfare Offices. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  12. Dworkin R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.
  13. Elster J. (1992). Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  14. Esping-Andersen G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  15. Evans T. (2013). Organisational Rules and Discretion in Adult Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 43 (4): 739-758.
  16. Evans T., Harris J. (2004). Street-level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34 (6): 871-895.
  17. Ferrera M. (1993). Modelli di solidarietà. Politica e riforme sociali nelle democrazie. Bologna: il Mulino.
  18. Gearey A. (2012). Justice as welfare. Equity and Solidarity. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  19. Ham C., Hill M. (1984). The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. Brighton: Harverster Press.
  20. Hill H.G. (2003). Understanding Implementation: Street-level Bureaucrats’ Resources for Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13 (3): 265-282.
  21. Hjern B. (1982). Implementation Research: The Link gone missing. Journal of Public Policy, 2: 301-308. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00001975
  22. Hughes H., Williamson K., Lloyd A. (2007). Critical incident technique. In: Lipu S., ed., Exploring methods in information literacy research. Topics in Australasian Library and Information Studies. Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Infromation Studies, Charles Sturt University.
  23. Hupe P., Buffat A. (2014). A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16 (4): 548-569. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2013.854401
  24. Kazepov Y., ed. (2010). Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe. Burlington: Ashgate.
  25. Kazepov Y., Barberis E. (2012). Social assistance governance in Europe. Towards a multi-level perspective. In: Marx I., Nelson K., eds., Minimum Income Protection in Flux. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Kelly M. (1994). Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 4 (2): 119-140.
  27. Kennet P., ed. (2004). A Handbook on Comparative Social Policy. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar.
  28. Lipsky M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  29. Mashaw J.L. (1983). Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  30. Mau S., Veghte B., eds. (2007). Social Justice, Legitimacy, and the Welfare State. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  31. Maynard-Moody S., Musheno M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (2): 329-358.
  32. Maynard-Moody S., Musheno M. (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  33. Meyers M.K., Vorsanger S. (2003). Street-Level Bureaucracy and Implementation of Public Policy. In: Peters B.G., Pierre J., eds., Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage.
  34. Moore S.T. (1987). The Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy: A Positive Critique. Administration and Society, 19 (1): 74-94. DOI: 10.1177/009539978701900104
  35. Musheno M., Maynard-Moody S. (2015). ‘Playing the rules’: discretion in social and policy context. In: Hupe P., Hill M., Buffat A., eds., Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.
  36. Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. (2018). Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(3): 294-304.
  37. Plant R., Lesser H., Taylor-Gooby P. (1980). Political Philosophy and Social Welfare. Essays on the normative basis of welfare provision. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  38. Powell M., Johns N., Green A. (2011). Social Justice in Social Policy. -- www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2011/PowellJohnsGreen%20P7.pdf.
  39. Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  40. Rice D. (2012). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State: toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9): 1038-1062.
  41. Richards L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
  42. Riessman C.K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: SAGE.
  43. Rummery C., Glendinning C. (2000). Access to services as a civil and social rights issue: The role of welfare professionals in regulating access to and commissioning services for disabled and older people under New Labour. Social Policy and Administration, 34(5): 529-550.
  44. Saruis T. (2015). Gli operatori sociali nel nuovo welfare. Roma: Carocci.
  45. van Oorschot W. (2000). Who Should Get What, and Why? On Deservingness Criteria and the Conditionality of Solidarity among the Public. Policy and Politics, 28 (1): 33-49.
  46. Watkins-Hayes C. (2011). Race, Respect, and Red Tape: Inside the Black Box of Racially Representative Bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21: 233-251.
  47. Weber M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner’s.
  48. Wenger E. (2000). Comunità di pratica e sistemi sociali di apprendimento. Studi organizzativi, 1: 11-33.
  49. Wilkins V.M., Wenger J.F. (2015). Street-level bureaucrats and client interaction in a just world. In: Hupe P., Hill M., Buffat A., eds., Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.
  50. Wilks T. (2004). The use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research into Social Work Values. Qualitative Social Work, 3: 78-87. DOI: 10.1177/1473325004041133
  51. Woolsey L.K. (1986). The Critical Incident Technique: An Innovative Qualitative Method of Research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20 (4): 242-254.

  • Who is the (“Ideal”) Victim of Labor Exploitation? Two Qualitative Vignette Studies on Labor Inspectors’ Discretion Kim Loyens, Rebecca Paraciani, in The Sociological Quarterly /2023 pp.27
    DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2021.1974321

Rebecca Paraciani, Tatiana Saruis, When the law is not enough. Caseworkers’ ideas of justice in practices in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 154/2019, pp 163-182, DOI: 10.3280/SL2019-154009