Street-level netocracy: rules, discretion and professionalism in a network-based intervention

Purpose: The paper aims to analyse the meaning and extension of discretionary power of social service professionals within network-based interventions. Design/methodology/approach: Empirically, the paper is based on a case study of a network-based policy involving private and public organisations in the Northeast of Italy (Province of Trento). Findings: The paper identifies netocracy as a social policy logic distinct from bureaucracy and professionalism. What legitimises netocracy is neither authority nor expertise but cooperation, the activation of connections and involvement, considered "good" per se. In this framework, professionalism and discretion acquire new and problematic meanings compared to street-level bureaucracy processes. Research limitations/implications: Based on a case study, the research results cannot be generalised but pave the way to further comparative investigations. Practical implications: The paper reveals that the position of professionals in netocracy is to some extent trickier than that in a bureaucracy because netocracy seems to have the power to encapsulate them and make it less likely for them to deviate from expected courses of action. Originality/value: Combining different literature streams - street level bureaucracy, professionalism, network organisations and welfare governance - and building on an original case study, the paper contribute to understanding professionalism in welfare contexts increasingly characterised by the combination of bureaucratic, professional and network logics.