Abstract
Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done.
Highlights
Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case
The analysis showed that frontline workers discussed three types of measures: medical measures, evaluative measures and return-to-work (RTW) measures
The similarities in the courses of action suggested by the focus groups highlight a possible limitation in discretionary reasoning of frontline workers, and a potential problem for the principle of justice
Summary
Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Room for discretion allows for flexibility; it may lead to unequal treatment or arbitrary judgements (Lipsky, 1980; Larsson & Jacobsson, 2013; Molander, Grimen & Eriksen, 2012; Nothdurfter, 2016). Håvold: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices in frontline workers’ practices. Earlier research on frontline workers at NAV indicates that they have considerable discretionary space for making decisions (Hansen & Natland, 2016; Solvang, 2017), which implies there may be a risk of unequal treatment. Arbitrariness in frontline workers’ use of discretion depends on the users’ willingness (or potential) to conform to the goals of the frontline workers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
