The concept of ' street-level bureaucracy ' was coined by Michael Lipsky (1980) as the common denominator for what would become a scholarly theme. Since then his stress on the relative autonomy of professionals has been complemented by the insight that they are working in a micro-network of relations, in varying contexts. The conception of ' governance ' adds a particular aspect to this: the multi-dimensional character of a policy system as a nested sequence of decisions. Combining these views casts a different perspective on the ways street-level bureaucrats are held accountable.In this article some axiomatic assumptions are drawn from the existing literature on the theme of street-level bureaucracy and on the conception of governance. Acknowledging variety, and arguing for contextualized research, this results in a rethinking of the issue of accountability at the street level.

No abstract

In recent decades, the introduction of market principles has transformed public service delivery into a hybrid. However, little is known about how these changes are reflected in the attitudes of private implementing agents: The hybridization literature neglects individuals, and street‐level bureaucracy research has disregarded hybridization. This article extends Hupe and Hill's () accountability regimes framework to introduce the market as an additional accountability regime alongside state, profession, and society. Using a configurational approach, the article explores how public and private food safety inspectors in Switzerland perceive the multiple norms for behavior stemming from their environment. Results suggest that the plural accountabilities of for‐profit street‐level bureaucrats can increase the dilemmas involved in their work. Under certain circumstances, for‐profit street‐level bureaucrats have particular difficulties reconciling rule pressure with market incentives and client demands. The extended accountability regimes framework fruitfully captures such dilemmas and helps identify suitable governance responses.

No abstract

Implementation occurs as a 'late' part in the stages model of the policy process. As such, it is seen as following upon and subordinate to the preceding stages of agenda-setting and policy formation. Hence, implementation is often addressed as 'the rest'. This view on implementation as a presupposed residual in goal achievement implies little attention to 'political' dimensions, like ambiguity and conflict. Therefore, the view can only partially explain the -sometimes disappointing -results of policy processes. Alternatively, approaches to the policy/implementation nexus with an explicit focus on what happens at the street level have a greater explanatory potential. They are not taking implementation for granted as a seemingly technical matter, simply prescribed by policy objectives.