From the Bottom-Up: Probing the Gap Between Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Intentions of Engaging in Policy Entrepreneurship and Their Behavior

Abstract

This article takes the perspective of the street-level bureaucrat (SLB) as policy entrepreneur, asking when SLBs are more or less likely to engage in actions aimed at policy change. Drawing on an interdisciplinary approach that connects the public management and policy implementation literatures, this article explores the gap between intentions and behavior in street-level policy entrepreneurship. It investigates two individual and organizational variables (coupling self-efficacy and organizational climate for innovation) that mediate and moderate the relationships between attitudes toward policy entrepreneurship, intentions to engage in policy entrepreneurship, and actual entrepreneurial behavior among SLBs. We demonstrate how strengthening the individual and organizational variables discussed can help organizations improve their bottom-up policy making.

Policy entrepreneurship on the street‐level: A systematic literature review

“…Table 2 indicates that 33% of the articles analyzed included individual policy entrepreneurs (Arnold, 2021; Golan‐Nadir, 2021) and 26% included group policy entrepreneurs (Gofen et al, 2021). Furthermore, 33% of the studies dealt with both types of policy entrepreneurs (Aviv et al, 2021; Frisch Aviram et al, 2021).…”

“…Further research is necessary to determine in which fields street-level policy entrepreneurship is truly more common. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that only one study has compared two types of policy domains (Frisch-Aviram et al, 2021). Further use of a comparative research design among different types of domains is needed to improve our understanding of this phenomenon (Béland & Howlett, 2016).…”

“…More recently, scholars have begun examining SLBs who act as policy entrepreneurs (Arnold, 2021; Cohen, 2021; Cohen & Aviram, 2021; Frisch Aviram et al, 2021). While there is a growing body of literature addressing this topic, the similarities and differences between traditional policy entrepreneurs and street‐level entrepreneurs have not been systematically studied.…”

Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China

“…In terms of the institutional mechanisms, the classical street‐level bureaucracy is embedded in both the top‐down administrative structure and the professional network. It is affected by the structure of the professional network and its professional status within the network (Frisch‐Aviram et al., 2021; Halliday et al., 2009; Keulemans & Groeneveld, 2020). Street‐level policy entrepreneurs are embedded in a more complex network of relationships, influenced by a combination of policy implementation pressures and local demands (Peake & Forsyth, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).…”

“…Different institutional environments have different welfare systems, which leads to differences in the organization of the welfare casework, and the problem explanations caseworkers develop to account for why clients need aid. This affects the responsiveness of the street‐level bureaucracy as well as rule bending, policy practices, the compliance motivations of the regulated objects, and the responsiveness of the welfare program (Cohen, 2018; Ferreira et al., 2020; Frisch‐Aviram et al., 2021; Jewell, 2007; Møller & Stensöta, 2019; Zang & Musheno, 2017; Zhang et al., 2020).…”