scholarly journals When the workplace is the home: labour inspectors’ discretionary power in the field of domestic work – an institutional analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Rebecca Paraciani ◽  
Roberto Rizza
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Domestic Workers ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Street Level ◽  
Administrative Policy ◽  
Standards And Guidelines ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Street Level Bureaucracy

AbstractThis article builds on previous studies concerning the question of street-level bureaucracy, an expression coined by Lipsky (1980) – Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russel Sage Foundation) – to highlight the importance of the discretionary power that professionals in public agencies exercise during the implementation of laws, standards and guidelines. Discretion may depend on the need to compromise between the limited resources available and the claims of citizens, or between administrative policy directives and assessments, on the one hand, and their interpretation by “street-level” bureaucrats, on the other. This article focuses on the dilemmas that labour inspectors face when dealing with employment irregularities involving domestic workers. Based on nine months of observations in a local office of the Italian Labour Inspectorate, it aims to understand how labour inspectors make use of their discretionary power when the workplace is the home. This article connects studies of street-level bureaucracy with the new institutional organisational analysis, focusing on the isomorphic pressures from the institutional field in which the labour inspectors operate, together with the manner in which such pressures shape labour inspectors’ discretion. Through this connection, the article aims to extend the scope of both theories.

New Communities and New Community Networks

2011 ◽  
pp. 174-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Schuler
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Social Intelligence ◽  
Economic Resources ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Natural Focus ◽  
The Core ◽  
New Community ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Global forces—economic, political and technological — threaten communities in many ways. On the one hand, citizens may feel like they’re part of an undifferentiated crowd with no personal identity. On the other hand, they may feel isolated and alone, disconnected from the human community. In either case, people—especially those with fewer economic resources—feel that they have little control over their future. The consequences of powerlessness, real or perceived, transcend the individual; society as a whole suffers, for it is deprived of social intelligence and energy which could be tapped for the amelioration of social and other problems. As a matter of fact, many of this century’s most pressing issues—the environment, women’s issues, sexual identity, and others—have been brought to the fore through the efforts of citizens (Habermas, 1996). Disempowering the individual and the community was probably not part of a master plan any more than degrading the environment was. Yet in many ways this is what has happened. Rebuilding the community—like cleaning up toxic dumps or reclaiming buried streams—will be a long process that will require diligence and patience. Rebuilding—and redefining—the community, therefore, is not optional, nor is it a luxury. It is at the core of our humanity; rebuilding it is our most pressing concern. Geographically based communities are a natural focus for addressing many of today’s problems. For one thing, many current problems—poverty, crime, unemployment, drug use, and many others—are concentrated in geographic communities. These problems are manifest in the community and are best examined and addressed by the community. Communities are also a familiar and natural unit. Smaller units can be clannish, unrepresentative, and powerless, while larger units are often too anonymous and unwieldy. The old concept of community, however, is obsolete in many ways and needs to be updated to meet today’s challenges. The old or “traditional” community was often exclusive, inflexible, isolated, immutable, monolithic, and homogeneous. Moreover, increased mobility coupled with widespread use of communication systems is de-emphasizing geography as the sole orienting factor in a “community.” And, although problems may be manifested in specific geographic communities, the contributing factors of the problem may exist in New York, London, Tokyo, or other nodes in today’s “Network Society” (Castells, 1996). A new community—one that is inclusive, fundamentally devoted to democratic problemsolving, outer-directed as well as inner-directed—needs to be fashioned from the remnants of the old community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document