Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref>

Abstract

As we continue our study of policy implementation we are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of exploring the frameworks through which public administrators view the world. Visions of social justice may be an important part of those frameworks. This article explores the principles of justice held by two groups of street-level bureaucrats and the overt relationship between those principles and their actions. Street-level bureaucrats are the final implementors of public policy. Their jobs are inherently discretionary and the actions they take (or fail to take) affect people in significant ways. As such this is an important group on which to focus. Do street-level bureaucrats exercise their discretion in order to produce what they believe to be just outcomes? Are there differences from one organizational arena to the next? This article explores these questions through an analysis of stories of justice and injustice told by two groups of street-level bureaucrats, schoolteachers and employees of the California Employment Development Department. These two groups work in very different organizational contexts with different cultural attitudes toward the use of discretion. My claim is that an organization's culture of discretion either enhances or inhibits the ability of street-level bureaucrats to orchestrate outcomes that are compatible with their visions of justice, thereby determining the significance of exploring street-level bureaucrats'justice judgments as we study the implementation process.