Improving Consistency in Performance Measurement System Design by Robinson Salazar Rua

Author:Robinson Salazar Rua
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783031246999
Publisher: Springer Nature Switzerland

3.2 The Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy

Street-level bureaucrats directly interact with citizens and decide how to allocate benefits and sanctions. According to Lipsky (1980), these employees should be seen as “the ultimate policymakers” because public policy becomes effective through their routines to deal with pressure and uncertainty. This scholar also denotes that public service workers often act in ways that contradict policy statutes as their job makes it impossible to achieve managerial expectations completely. Similarly, other researchers assert that front-line workers operate in environments where goals are ambiguous and the need for action is imperative. Therefore, they are forced to make choices between dissimilar rules and routes of action (Davis 1970; Blau 1955; Merton 1957). It implies that rule application and discretion require a high level of trust in public service workers’ abilities to achieve institutional outcomes and deal with complex situations in creative modes (Fox 1974).

Classical theories aimed at explaining changes in policy outcomes assume a straightforward link between policy design and policy implementation. That is, strategic plans are often outlined by top-down approaches that have little concern about how the operational process is performed at the bottom of the hierarchical structure (Dodds 2013; Weber 2009). However, reality is complex and limitations on the underlying principles become clear when service delivery takes place. Therefore, overlooking the role of street-level workers is not only a mistake, but it is dangerous for the achievement of community goals (Lipsky 1980).

If outputs and outcomes matter, then the role of front-line workers should be taken into consideration as they shape public policies by interpreting rules and allocating resources among citizens (Meyers and Nielsen 2012). In particular, linear and vertical integration from policy design to policy implementation should not be assumed, because the conversion of higher goals into operational variables depends on heterogenous dynamics. This situation makes public workers’ actions diverge from general and abstract procedures that attempt to achieve uniformity in the provided services (May and Winter 2009).

Street-level bureaucrats have direct responsibility for public service delivery, since they behave as mediators in the relationship between the state and citizens (Lipsky 1980). In addition, their actions exercise a powerful influence on the community as they make final decisions on how to socialize government plans and how to allocate human efforts during the phase of policy implementation (Lipsky 2010). Likewise, street-level bureaucrats’ behaviors have a personal and immediate effect on the community, characterized by a focus on the individual. On the one hand, it implies that these employees may affect citizens’ life opportunities through their attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs toward the system where they operate. On the other hand, it also implies that a high commitment to the use of human-centered approaches for dealing with clients’ reactions is expected (Maynard-Moody and Leland 2000). In short, the objects of street-level bureaucrats’ decisions are people. Initially, their actions should be judged only through lenses that favor personal attachment and subjectivity because these are the foundations of autonomy and discretionary power. Posteriorly, their actions should be taken in concert to strengthen agency behavior (Brock et al.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.