Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Abstract

Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street-level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's streetlevel bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street-level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005-2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street-level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street-level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground. Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all-or-nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street-level; • However, street-level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.Although public management, social policy and social work are closely interrelated, their debates have been characterised by different perspectives as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. Especially in relation to social policy and social work, it has been pointed out that, despite their mutual dependence, their relations are an underexposed matter and their perspectives and debates barely ever converge However, the prominent revival of Michael Lipsky's (1980/2010) street-level bureaucracy approach during the last 15 years has done much to identify a common feature of the debates in public management, social policy and social work. Lipsky's approach addresses the dilemmas faced by the individuals at the frontline of public services. An important contribution of Lipsky's approach is that he has highlighted how the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, the devices Int J Soc Welfare 2018: 27: 294-304

Talking policy into being—How street‐level bureaucrats and vulnerable unemployed talk about labor market participation

“…Lipsky himself defines SLBs as “ Public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work ” (Lipsky 2010, p. 3). The vast and rich SLB research tradition has been reviewed on several occasions (Brodkin, ; Brodkin, ; Hupe et al ; Maynard‐Moody & Portillo, ; Nothdurfter & Hermans, just to mention a few). In Brodkin's review of the SLB tradition, following the relaunch of Lipsky's book (2010), she outlines two major areas of SLB research over time.…”

“…The concept of street‐level bureaucracy, originally coined by Michael Lipsky () has been widely used in research and has been revitalized in recent years (Berkel et al, ; Evans, ; Nothdurfter & Hermans, ). Lipsky himself defines SLBs as “ Public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work ” (Lipsky 2010, p. 3).…”

Access to social services as a rite of integration: Power, rights, and identity

“…Here, professionals who concretely deal with access are mostly asked to play the role of gatekeepers for access to resources, in a way that tends to reproduce inequalities in society. This approach could be partly connected to the vast literature on street‐level bureaucrats: several studies inspired by Lipsky's analysis, albeit not necessarily focused on access, underline the role of frontline workers as those who decide who will receive the provisions by using their discretionary power (Nothdurfter & Hermans, ).…”

Into the ordinary: non-elite actors and the mobility of harm reduction policies

“…Street-level bureaucrats actively mediate between the intent and implications of policy, thereby translating or mutating it. There is significant scope for policy transfer and mobility scholars to better understand the role of state-based non-elites, and the sizeable literature on street-level bureaucrats is an ideal place to start (for an overview, see Northdurfter & Hermans, 2018).…”