How street-level bureaucrats exercise their discretion to encourage clients’ political participation: A case study of Israeli LGBTQ+ teachers

Abstract

Do street-level bureaucrats exercise discretion to encourage clients’ political participation? If so, how, and in what way is it demonstrated? This study examines these questions empirically through 36 semi-structured in-depth interviews with LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) teachers in Israel. Findings reveal that these street-level bureaucrats encourage clients to participate politically through strategies they adopt both inside and outside the work environment. In the classroom their lessons contain political content and expressions of political protest. Outside school they employ digital media to influence students. Clients’ political participation is manifested both jointly with street-level bureaucrats and independently of them.

Winds of change: How street‐level bureaucrats actively represent minority clients by influencing majority clients—The context of LGB Israeli teachers

“…Fourth, unlike previous representative bureaucracy studies that focus on demographic characteristics of bureaucrats and clients such as ethnicity, race, and gender (Wilkins & Wenger, 2015), I focus on sexual orientation. There are few studies about LGBTQ+ street‐level bureaucrats and the role that their sexual orientation plays in representing clients who are also LGBTQ+ (Davidovitz, 2022; Davidovitz & Cohen, 2022a). As stated, although the policy towards LGBTQ+ people in many countries has come a long way in terms of the rights granted to them, they still suffer from discrimination.…”

“…I argue that by adopting practices aimed at promoting tolerance and preventing discrimination, street‐level bureaucrats lead to normative outcomes for the minority clients whom they represent. I illustrate this contention by focusing on LGB street‐level bureaucrats, a population overlooked in the literature on both representative (Kennedy & Bishu, 2020) and street‐level bureaucracy (Davidovitz, 2022; Davidovitz & Cohen, 2022a).…”

“…This gap is mainly due to the conflict and tension between the country's ultra‐Orthodox religious and secular populations (Shilo et al, 2015). Because these tensions may directly affect street‐level bureaucrats (Davidovitz, 2022), they may also affect how these bureaucrats represent their clients. Given that street‐level bureaucrats make decisions based on their ideologies and perceptions (see e.g., Cohen, 2021), this will impact how they use their discretion when representing LGBTQ+ clients.…”

“…Third, it shows how street‐level bureaucrats see the outputs of their active representation of their minority clients. Fourth, the study investigates empirically this phenomenon among LGB street‐level bureaucrats, a population hitherto ignored by the street‐level and representative bureaucracy literature (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Davidovitz, 2022; Davidovitz & Cohen, 2022a). Altogether, the study contributes to a better understanding of the role of street‐level bureaucrats as active representatives of minority clients and resultant policy outcomes.…”

Street-Level Bias: Examining Factors Related to Street-Level Bureaucrats’ State or Citizen Favoritism

“…Yet, procedural equity (that is, the notion that public service relations should be objective) and procedural values, such as respect and fairness, continue to be major drivers of public trust in government (Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2020; Mcloughlin, 2015; Moynihan et al, 2015). Thus, citizens who believe that state officials treat them fairly are more likely to accept administrative decisions (Kang, 2021) and develop trust in governance by generalizing their positive personal experiences (Davidovitz, 2022; Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005). People encounter “Procedural Fairness” (i.e., processes designed to reduce bias or favoritism in government decision-making (Ruder & Woods, 2020) 1 through their interactions with street-level bureaucrats (Edri-Peer & Cohen, 2023; Raaphorst & Van de Walle, 2020) whom they perceive to be the symbolic face of government (Lipsky, 2010).…”