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

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.