LIST OF WORKSHOPS

What laws formally guarantee, politicians promise, and public policies aim to achieve needs to be materialized in our daily interactions with public organizations. There, we often encounter street-level bureaucrats, low-ranking public servants, or frontline workers who process our applications for a social benefit, provide access to public services such as health care or education, and enforce traffic and safety regulations. The academic literature has established a common ground in understanding these civil servants. It is well-documented, for instance, that street-level bureaucrats, or frontline workers, shape policies and public services rather than merely implement them (Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003). They do not simply apply formal rules to individual cases. Instead, a hospital’s emergency staff decides which patients to attend to first, police officers on the street decide whom to pull over and how to treat each specific case, and social workers negotiate with their clients about treatment plans. Although the specific organizational and work context matters, street-level bureaucrats always have some form of discretion in the way they interpret, apply, or bend the rules and deal with citizens (Hupe & Hill, 2007; Evans, 2011).

What happens in street-level bureaucracies, however, when basic resources are not provided or are simply non-existing? Or when adverse working conditions limit the extent to which job expectations and client demands can be met? For example, in many places, nurses and medics face a lack of basic materials to provide health care. Police officers are expected to enforce rules in violent urban contexts or remote rural areas. Desk clerks have to make decisions in the absence of clear formal guidelines. And many social workers lack the means to attend to the problems of highly marginalized communities. This panel is about those street-level bureaucrats and seeks to contribute to understanding how structurally adverse working conditions affect bureaucrats’ decisions and behavior and how these impact policy implementation and citizen-state interactions. Rather than understanding street-level bureaucratic behavior and decision-making as a “collection of isolated individual actions” (Gofen, 2014: 485), we tap into a strand of research that highlights the way organizational contexts (May & Winter, 2009; Brodkin, 2012), societal expectations (Sandfort, 2000; Møller & Stensøta, 2019), formal rule systems and accountability regimes (Hupe & Hill, 2007), and professional networks and deliberation (Møller, 2021) shape frontline work.

More specifically, this panel builds upon studies that draw attention to contexts where street-level bureaucrats commonly face adverse social and working conditions, such as precarity, instability, and endemic violence or corruption (Peeters & Campos, 2022). Most research on street-level bureaucracy has historically been conducted in countries characterized by high levels of administrative capacity, professional bureaucracies, stable rules of law, and in industrialized and often democratic societies (Bertelli et al., 2020). However, most of the world’s street-level bureaucrats work under very different institutional conditions. Politicized bureaucracies, low social trust in government, systemic corruption, precarious labor conditions, and limited state capacities are common traits of bureaucracies in developing countries and post-authoritarian regimes (Lotta et al., 2021). This panel contributes to decolonizing studies on street-level bureaucracy by questioning assumptions about the nature of North and South bureaucracies and the way weak state capacities, patchy service provision, contested state legitimacy, and social inequalities play out in street-level interactions between citizens and the state (Eiró & Lotta, 2023).

The panel seeks to further our understanding of the way social inequalities fundamentally affect state-citizen relationships and how the street-level bureaucracies reflect and often reproduce these inequalities (Eiró & Lotta, 2023). Specific topics of relevance include – but are not limited to – the variety of strategies street-level bureaucrats develop to cope with extreme “public service gaps” (Hupe & Buffat, 2014), how territorial differences in policy implementation produce “fragmented stateness” (Perelmiter, 2021), the informalization of street-level interactions in the form of petty corruption (Blundo, 2006), the consequences of street-level bureaucrats’ embeddedness in the communities they serve (Bhavnani & Lee, 2018; Mangla, 2022), and the brokerage function of street-level bureaucrats in “relational states” (Peake & Forsyth, 2022). We hope that bringing forward research on these topics will prove key to decolonizing studies of street-level bureaucracy and to understanding citizen-state encounters across the globe.

We welcome papers of all kinds of methods and approaches (public administration, ethnography, political science, etc.) in this panel. Although we aim primarily for scholars studying the Global South, we explicitly do not exclude papers presenting relevant research from other parts of the world. Paper submissions may be theoretical, methodological, or empirical. Relevant topics for this panel include:

-          Street-level bureaucracy and social inequality

-          Comparative studies of street-level bureaucracy

-          Street-level bureaucracy in the Global South

-          Contested citizen-bureaucrat interactions

-          Political influences on street-level bureaucracy

-          State and administrative capacity / institutional weakness and street-level bureaucracy

-          Decolonial approaches to street-level bureaucracy

The panel is part of a broader community of scholars working on topics of street-level bureaucracy and frontline work in the Global South, particularly Latin America. During the IWPP 2024, we intend to present the findings from a book project (currently in production with Policy Press: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/street-level-bureaucracy-in-weak-state-institutions) as well as report on initial findings from the Working Group on ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy and Inequalities in Latin America’ of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO - https://www.clacso.org/burocracia-a-nivel-de-calle-y-desigualdades/). We will actively pursue publication strategies for papers presented at the IWPP 2024. To promote feedback and facilitate community building, all contributing authors to the panel will be asked to prepare comments on one of the other submitted papers to the IWPP 2024.

References

Bertelli, A.M., Hassan, M., Honig, D., Rogger, D., & Williams, M.J. (2020). An Agenda for the Study of Public Administration in Developing Countries. Governance, 33(4), 735-748.

Bhavnani, R.R., & Lee, A. (2018). Local Embeddedness and Bureaucratic Performance: Evidence from India. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 71–87.

Blundo, G. (2006). Dealing With the Local State: The Informal Privatization of Street-Level Bureaucracies in Senegal. Development And Change, 37(4): 799–819.

Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940-949.

Eiró, F. & Lotta, G. (2023). On the frontline of global inequalities: A decolonial approach to the study of street-level bureaucracies, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad019.

Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386.

Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the Gap: Dimensions and Influence of Street-Level Divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473-493.

Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A Public Service Gap: Capturing Contexts in a Comparative Approach of Street-Level Bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.

Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-Level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.

Lipsky, M. (1980 [2010]). Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services [30th Anniversary Expanded Edition]. New York, U.S.A.: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lotta, G., Lima-Silva, F., & Favareto, A. (2021). Dealing with violence: Varied reactions from frontline workers acting in highly vulnerable territories. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 23996544211031560.

Mangla, A. (2022). Making Bureaucracy Work: Norms, Education and Public Service Delivery in Rural India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

May, P. & Winter, S. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453-476.

Maynard-Moody, S.W. & Musheno, M. C. (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press.

Møller, A.M. (2021). Deliberation and Deliberative Organizational Routines in Frontline Decision-Making, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(3), 471–488.

Møller, M.Ø., & Stensöta, H.O. (2019). Welfare state regimes and caseworkers’ problem explanation. Administration & Society, 51(9), 1425-1454.

Peake, G., & Forsyth, M. (2022). Street-level bureaucrats in a relational state: The case of Bougainville. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), 12‑21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1911

Peeters, R. & Campos, S.A. (2022). Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: a systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196.

Perelmiter, L. (2021). “Fairness” in an unequal society: Welfare workers, labor inspectors and the embedded moralities of street-level bureaucracy in Argentina. Public Administration and Development, 1– 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1954.

Sandfort, J.R. (2000). Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public Management from the Front Lines of the Welfare System. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729-756.

This panel seeks to contribute to decolonizing studies on street-level bureaucracy by questioning assumptions about the nature of North and South bureaucracies and the way weak state capacities, patchy service provision, contested state legitimacy, and social inequalities play out in street-level interactions between citizens and the state. Discussions and presentations in this panel are aimed at improving our understanding of the way social inequalities fundamentally affect state-citizen relationships and how the street-level bureaucracies reflect and often reproduce these inequalities. Specific topics of relevance include – but are not limited to – the variety of strategies street-level bureaucrats develop to cope with overdemand and resource shortages, how territorial differences in policy implementation produce inequalities, the informalization of street-level interactions with citizens, the consequences of street-level bureaucrats’ embeddedness and the brokerage function of street-level bureaucrats in the communities they serve.

We welcome papers of all kinds of methods and approaches (public administration, ethnography, political science, etc.) in this panel. Although we aim primarily for scholars studying the Global South, we explicitly do not exclude papers presenting relevant research from other parts of the world. Paper submissions may be theoretical, methodological, or empirical. Relevant topics for this panel include:

-          Street-level bureaucracy and social inequality

-          Comparative studies of street-level bureaucracy

-          Street-level bureaucracy in the Global South

-          Contested citizen-bureaucrat interactions

-          Political influences on street-level bureaucracy

-          State and administrative capacity / institutional weakness and street-level bureaucracy

-          Decolonial approaches to street-level bureaucracy

What laws formally guarantee, politicians promise, and public policies aim to achieve needs to be materialized in our daily interactions with public organizations. There, we often encounter street-level bureaucrats, low-ranking public servants, or frontline workers who process our applications for a social benefit, provide access to public services such as health care or education, and enforce traffic and safety regulations. What happens in street-level bureaucracies, however, when basic resources are not provided or are simply non-existing? Or when adverse working conditions limit the extent to which job expectations and client demands can be met? This panel is about those street-level bureaucrats and seeks to contribute to understanding how structurally adverse working conditions affect bureaucrats´ decisions and behavior and how these impact policy implementation and citizen-state interactions.

We build upon studies that draw attention to contexts where street-level bureaucrats commonly face adverse social and working conditions, such as precarity, instability, and endemic violence or corruption – common for the Global South or other weak institutional contexts. Specifically, the aim of this panel is contributing to decolonizing studies on street-level bureaucracy by questioning assumptions about the nature of North and South bureaucracies and the way weak state capacities, patchy service provision, contested state legitimacy, and social inequalities play out in street-level interactions between citizens and the state. Discussions and presentations in this panel are aimed at improving our understanding of the way social inequalities fundamentally affect state-citizen relationships and how the street-level bureaucracies reflect and often reproduce these inequalities.

Taly Reininger

Taly Reininger earned her PhD in Social Work and Social Welfare from Fordham University in New York. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Work, University of Chile. Her research interests include social policy, program implementation, and poverty and inequality. She has recently published on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on social program implementation, front-line professional resistance, as well as the implementation of Chile’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program.

Gianinna Múñoz Arce

Gianinna Muñoz Arce holds a PhD in Social Work from Bristol University (UK). She is Associate Professor at the Department of Social Work, University of Chile. Her research interests are critical theory, social intervention, and social work. She teaches Social Work Theoretical Approaches in several PhD programs in Social Work (La Plata University, Argentina, and Alberto Hurtado University, Chile). Her recent publications include “Decolonising community social work: contributions of front-line professional resistances from a Mapuche perspective” (Critical and Radical Social Work) and “Decolonial feminism and practices of resistance to sustain life: experiences of women social workers implementing mental health programmes in Chile” (Affilia).

Rik Peeters

Rik Peeters is associate professor of public administration at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE) in Mexico City. His main research interests are street-level bureaucracy, citizen-state interactions, and digital government. In recent publications, he has analyzed street-level interactions in social programs, the distributive effects of administrative burdens, and the digitalization of citizen-state interactions.