Whose Agent? The Effect of Institutional Logics on Street-Level Implementation of Morality Policy

Institutional settings evoke different conceptions with regard to what should be morally accepted in society and what shouldn't. Research has identified so-called institutional logics that guide position-taking and action of organisations in different public policy sectors and especially, in moral-laden policy. To what extent these logics influence implementation at the street-level has so far hardly been studied. This question is especially interesting for morality policy, as due to political conflict, moral-laden policies are often vaguely formulated, leaving a considerable amount of discretion to the implementation stage. Under these circumstances, do different institutional settings lead to different types of implementation styles on the ground? I argue that institutional logics crystallize at the street-level, resulting in different types of agency in organisations associated with the logics of the state, civil society and religion. By means of semi-structured and narrative interviewing, I identify three types of agency –the state agent, the civil agent and the care agent – and assess how these agents’ implementation styles are consistent with their institutional affiliation. In particular, I explore how and why religiously affiliated service delivery differs from non-confessional service delivery. The paper links social work research to public administration research and shows how the disciplines speak to each other, thereby unpacking the dynamics that guide corporative welfare state delivery on the ground.