IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v11y2017i4p353-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role perceptions and attitudes toward discretion at a decentralized regulatory frontline: The case of organic inspectors

Author

Listed:
  • David P. Carter

Abstract

The complexity of decentralized regulatory contexts can threaten program fidelity, particularly if it results in divergence between program goals and the intents of regulatory inspectors. This paper investigates how inspectors negotiate the conflicting demands of a decentralized program by examining how they perceive their regulatory roles – the primary responsibilities that inspectors ascribe to their functions and the entities to which they feel responsible – and how these role orientations are related to inspectors' attitudes toward the use of discretion. The study findings indicate that in the decentralized administration of United States organic food regulations, inspectors experience multiple, and sometimes conflicting, role orientations. The presence of multiple role orientations, however, does not seem to affect how inspectors approach their responsibilities. The combined strengths of quantitative and qualitative data are leveraged to offer explanations for the study findings and identify avenues for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • David P. Carter, 2017. "Role perceptions and attitudes toward discretion at a decentralized regulatory frontline: The case of organic inspectors," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 353-367, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:4:p:353-367
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12143
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12143?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. PeterJ May & Søren Winter, 1999. "Regulatory enforcement and compliance: Examining Danish agro-environmental policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 625-651.
    2. Michelle C. Pautz, 2010. "Front‐line Regulators and their Approach to Environmental Regulation in Southwest Ohio," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(6), pages 761-780, November.
    3. Søren C. Winter & Peter J. May, 2001. "Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 675-698.
    4. Peter J. May, 1993. "Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 634-663.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayako Hirata, 2021. "How networks among frontline offices influence regulatory enforcement: Diffusion and justification of interpretation of risk," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1388-1405, October.
    2. Ifie, Kemefasu & Mousavi, Sahar & Xie, Junyi, 2023. "Enforcement of service rules by frontline employees: A conceptual model and research propositions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    2. Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen & Christine Parker, 2009. "Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 376-399, December.
    3. Wallin, Are & Zannakis, Mathias & Johansson, Lars-Olof & Molander, Sverker, 2013. "Influence of interventions and internal motivation on Swedish homeowners’ change of on-site sewage systems," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 27-40.
    4. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2021. "Why meta‐research matters to regulation and governance scholarship: An illustrative evidence synthesis of responsive regulation research," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 123-142, November.
    5. Buckley, Cathal, 2012. "Implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in the Republic of Ireland — A view from the farm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 29-36.
    6. Zhang, Zibin & Yang, Wenxin & Ye, Jianliang, 2021. "Why sulfur dioxide emissions decline significantly from coal-fired power plants in China? Evidence from the desulfurated electricity pricing premium program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    7. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    8. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    9. Maria R. Ibanez & Michael W. Toffel, 2020. "How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food-Safety Inspections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2396-2416, June.
    10. Abdullah Banikhalid & Michel Rahbeh, 2024. "The Role of the Law in Prompting Environmental Stewardship for Farms Located Near Phosphate Mines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Manuel Fernández-García & Clemente J. Navarro & Irene Gómez-Ramirez, 2021. "Evaluating Territorial Targets of European Integrated Urban Policy. The URBAN and URBANA Initiatives in Spain (1994–2013)," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
    12. Carmen Arguedas & Dietrich Earnhart & Sandra Rousseau, 2017. "Non-uniform implementation of uniform standards," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 159-183, April.
    13. Huiqi Yan & Jeroen van der Heijden & Benjamin van Rooij, 2017. "Symmetric and asymmetric motivations for compliance and violation: A crisp set qualitative comparative analysis of Chinese farmers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 64-80, March.
    14. Carlos Wing-Hung Lo & Gerald Erick Fryxell, 2005. "Governmental and Societal Support for Environmental Enforcement in China: An Empirical Study in Guangzhou," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 558-588.
    15. Yingjie Hao & Congcong Fan & Yunguang Long & Jieyi Pan, 2019. "The role of returnee executives in improving green innovation performance of Chinese manufacturing enterprises: Implications for sustainable development strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-818, July.
    16. Rafael Robina Ramírez & Pedro R. Palos-Sánchez, 2018. "Environmental Firms’ Better Attitude towards Nature in the Context of Corporate Compliance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Lucas Bretschger & Alexandra Vinogradova, 2015. "Equitable and effective climate policy: Integrating less developed countries into a global climate agreement," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 437-467, October.
    18. Corneliussen, Filippa, 2004. "Justifying non-compliance. A case study of a Norwegian biotech firm," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36054, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Ann-Kathrin Koessler & Stefanie Engel, 2021. "Policies as Information Carriers: How Environmental Policies May Change Beliefs and Consequent Behavior," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-31, July.
    20. Jo Crotty & Peter Rodgers, 2012. "Sustainable Development in the Russia Federation: The Limits of Greening within Industrial Firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 178-190, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:4:p:353-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.