Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service

• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Author: Jason D. Rivera,Claire Connolly Knox
• Date: 01 January 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13550

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative

legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service

Jason D. Rivera

1

| Claire Connolly Knox

2

1

Department of Public Management, John Jay

College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, New York,

New York, USA

2

School of Public Administration, University of

Central Florida, DPAC, Orlando, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Jason D. Rivera, John Jay College of Criminal

Justice, CUNY, 53341 Haaren Hall, 524 West 59th

Street, New York, NY 10019, USA.

Email: jarivera@jjay.cuny.edu

Abstract

Bureaucratic discretion continues to be one of a public administrator’s primary powers

while at the same time being one of their most controversial. Used in a positive way,

bureaucratic discretion can enhance social equity; however, this practice can create

administrative legitimacy dilemmas. As such, this paper conceptually discusses the

theoretical position of public administrators that contributes to their engagement in

legitimacy dilemmas, which is further complicated by the tenets of New Public Ser-

vice. We argue that if public administrators are engaged in authentic interactions with

the public and use their discretion to reflect the interests of the public, then they are

engaged in truly democratic governance. We place this argument in the context of

achieving social equity and highlight an avoided question in public administration.

Finally, recommendations for future research are offered as a means progressing the

social equity agenda in public administration.

KEYWORDS

bureaucratic discretion, governance, legitimacy, New Public Service, social equity

Evidence for practice

•Acting “objectively”to pursue subjective and ever-evolving interests and goals

can contribute to administrative legitimacy in the eyes of some but not others.

•When public administrators cut out the “middleman”they are engaging in more

direct forms of democracy and subsequent administrative responsiveness.

•As a profession, public administration needs a better understanding of the pub-

lic’s conceptualization of social equity, and whether they want to pursue it.

INTRODUCTION

Although the traditional view of the bureaucracy has been

one that emphasizes its role in the implementation of policy

and enforcement of guidelines, Lowi (1969)andKerwin

(1994) maintain that their function has evolved over time to

also include the creation of policy through its implementa-

tion. Generally, bureaucracies and the individuals that com-

pose them have the potential to stimulate new policies

based on their day-to-day functions of determining who gets

what, when, and how. As such, bureaucrats use their discre-

tion in answering central questions of politics

(Lasswell, 1936), molding future politics and policies by con-

tributing to policy feedback processes (Pierson, 1993;

Skocpol, 1992), and implementing the on-going interests and

activities of the welfare state (Racine, 1995;Walzer,1988).

According to Keiser (1999) bureaucrats have this

effect on politics and the policy environment because

they can exercise their choice in the administration of

policies, as opposed to rules dictating how to implement

programs. Public administration scholars (Fredrickson, 1993;

Keiser, 1999; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000;

Selden, 1997;Seldenetal.,1998; Visser & Kruyen, 2021)

have studied the implications of bureaucratic discretion in

relation to the implementation of welfare state policies. For

example, various studies have highlighted the positive

effects of discretion wielded by street-level bureaucrats in

which they “stretch the law”to serve clients’needs more

effectively (Keiser, 1999). The potential implications of these

actions result in more equitable outcomes among the citi-

zenry and beneficiaries of programs (Handler, 1992)

because discretion is used to meet social justice goals

Received: 9 September 2021 Revised: 24 June 2022 Accepted: 1 July 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13550

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:65–77. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2022 American Society for Public Administration. 65