The Necessity of Discretion: A Behavioral Evaluation of Bottom-Up Implementation Theory

Abstract

The topic of discretion continues to be hotly debated in policy design and policy implementation. In top-down theories, discretion at the frontline is often seen as a control problem: discretion should be avoided as it can mean that the policy is not implemented as intended. Conversely, bottom-up theories state that discretion can help policy implementers tailor a policy to specific circumstances. However, there has been little systematic research into how the experience of having discretion motivates frontline workers to implement a policy. We conceptualize and evaluate this relationship by combining public administration and motivation literature, using datasets in healthcare and education and large-N set-theoretic configurational analysis. Results robustly show that experiencing discretion is a quasi-necessary condition and, hence, a prerequisite for high implementation willingness. This finding is more in line with bottom-up than with top-down theories. Policy implementers crucially need the freedom to adapt the program to local conditions for being motivated to implement a policy. The evidence encourages scholars and practitioners to move from the question whether frontline workers should be granted discretion to how to best make use of frontline workers’ discretion instead.