Social workers as street‐level policy entrepreneurs

Abstract

Knowledge on street‐level bureaucrats as policy entrepreneurs is in its infancy. This article contributes to this emerging field by examining three cases of successful efforts by social workers employed by local social services in Israel to introduce local policy change. These processes varied in the issues that they addressed and the length of time that the policy process took. In each case, a small number of low‐ and meso‐street level community social workers were identified as policy entrepreneurs. Despite their limited resources, formal authority and political capital, the social workers invested efforts over long periods of time into furthering policies they believed would help the communities they worked with. The strategies adopted included seeking legitimacy; creating and disseminating knowledge; participating in policy arenas; and generally eschewing subversive tactics. The interplay between professional affiliation and institutional context informed their motivation to address specific social problems and the strategies they adopted.

Street‐level bureaucrats and policy entrepreneurship: When implementers challenge policy design

“…By investigating bottom‐up policy making, they suggest focusing on the individual street‐level bureaucrat as a policy agent. Taking a new direction, they study the unique strategies of policy entrepreneurs (Arnold, 2021); the interplay between professional affiliation and institutional, context driven street‐level policy entrepreneurship (Aviv et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2021); and analyze this phenomenon during a global crisis (Lotta et al, 2021). Thus, they move beyond the traditional view of street‐level bureaucrats as solely implementers of existing policy.…”

“…The second symposium article by Aviv et al, 2021 adds to the current discussion about street‐level policy entrepreneurship by analyzing the interplay between professional affiliation and institutional context. It also explores the motivation of street‐level policy entrepreneurs to address specific social problems and the strategies they adopt in doing so.…”

The Strengthening Mechanism of the Relationship between Social Work and Public Health under COVID-19 in China

“…The social work profession itself should also be adept at seizing various fleeting windows of opportunity to translate macro policy into effective micro practice, using policy advocacy and policy practice to fully interact with policy subjects [ 54 ] and promote the clarity and normalization of policy support. Recent research points to a long period when social workers invested a lot of energy into advancing policies that they thought would help the communities they worked with [ 55 ], which opens up more space for social work practice to be more specific and legalistic. Gal and Weiss-Gal provide specific practical pathways: proxy, recruitment networks, social work academia, civil society, and “insiders” [ 56 ].…”

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

“…Under specific circumstances, SLBs can make use of their local knowledge, skills, and tacit rules in order to act as advocates or welfare entrepreneurs (Markström et al, 2009). SLBs can even be active policy entrepreneurs to creatively solve policy problems and realize policy reconstruction (e.g., Arnold, 2015Arnold, , 2021Aviv et al, 2021;Frisch-Aviram et al, 2018;Gofen et al, 2021;Lavee & Cohen, 2019;Petchey et al, 2008).…”

“…Under specific circumstances, SLBs can make use of their local knowledge, skills, and tacit rules in order to act as advocates or welfare entrepreneurs (Markström et al., 2009). SLBs can even be active policy entrepreneurs to creatively solve policy problems and realize policy reconstruction (e.g., Arnold, 2015, 2021; Aviv et al., 2021; Cohen & Aviram, 2021; Frisch‐Aviram et al., 2018; Gofen et al., 2021; Lavee & Cohen, 2019; Petchey et al., 2008). Street‐level policy entrepreneurs use policy innovation, experimentation, and restructuring to adapt to local needs (Durose, 2009; Finlay & Sandall, 2009; Piore, 2011).…”