Double Standards in Frontline Decision Making: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration

Abstract

Drawing on status characteristics and double standards theory, this study explores how social categories may affect the standards tax officials use in evaluating citizen-clients’ trustworthiness, leading to differential evaluation. Whereas the street-level bureaucracy literature mainly focuses on the direct effect of social categories on officials’ judgments, this study shows how stereotyping in the public encounter could be much subtler and more pervasive than is hitherto studied. Based on semistructured interviews containing 40 stories of tax officials who inspect entrepreneurs’ tax returns, this study suggests that similar signals may indeed be interpreted differently for different social groups.

Playing defence: the impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats

“…Studies have documented SLBs' trust in their clients being very relevant to the formers' decisions (Yang and Holzer 2006). Furthermore, various elements such as honesty (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003), trustworthiness (Raaphorst and Groeneveld 2018), and cooperativeness (Maynard-Moody and Leland 2000) play a significant role in how SLBs evaluate their clients' level of deservingness. Trust is a major factor in SLBs' assessment of clients' 'worthiness' (Yang 2005).…”

“…Recent studies demonstrate that SLBs may make differing decisions based on how they assess their clients' moral characteristics. For example, they may divide their clients into stereotypical categories (Raaphorst and Groeneveld 2018) that help them evaluate clients' level of 'deservingness' (Jilke and Tummers 2018).…”

Unraveling the hindering factors of digital public service delivery at street-level: the case of electronic health records

“…Whereas digital templates could be experienced as useful "reminders," they could thus also be seen as diverting attention away from "real problems" (Checkland, McDonald, and Harrison 2007). Research has shown that street-level bureaucrats prefer information assessed in face-to-face interactions with citizen-clients over information generated by digital systems (Raaphorst and Groeneveld 2018). Looking specifically at the NHS case, we have seen that physicians, who can be depicted as professionals having "strong discretion," perceive a digital system as less useful, and feel threatened, when it codifies knowledge that previously belonged to their professional discretion.…”

Citizen‐agency versus state‐agency at the frontline in prisons and probation services: A systematic literature review

“…Next to recent works on discrimination or stereotyping (e.g. Jilke & Tummers, 2018; Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018), street‐level bureaucracy (SLB) research has diagnosed (Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2000) and documented (e.g. Tummers, 2017; Tummers & Bekkers, 2014) the tension between two ‘narratives’ of frontline work.…”

“…employment or welfare: Dias & Maynard‐Moody, 2007; Tummers & Bekkers, 2014), on regulatory services (e.g. tax, food or building inspectors: de Boer & Eshuis, 2018; May & Wood, 2003; Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018) or police services (e.g., Epp, Maynard‐Moody, & Haider‐Markel, 2014; Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003). However, the lack of studies conducted in correctional settings remains paradoxical as Lipsky argues that the correction field provides a ‘highly refined example of street‐level bureaucratic discretion’ (Lipsky, 2010, p. 13).…”