Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State

Rice, Deborah

doi:10.1177/0095399712451895

Cited by 109 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comprehensive frameworks on factors determining implementation are developed by Jewell and Glaser (), Hupe and Buffat () and Rice (). The analytic framework by Jewell and Glaser () distinguishes six factors: authority, role expectations, workload, client contact, knowledge and expertise, and incentives.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their model enables the systematic capture of macro‐ and meso‐contextual influences, thereby enhancing comparative research on street‐level bureaucracy. Rice () combines a street‐level perspective with micro‐institutionalism. Her comparative contribution identifies different layers that influence the implementation process of activation policies: the professional identity of the caseworker; caseworker's ideas of the worthiness of clients; organisational characteristics; and wider political, economic, cultural and social developments and institutions that frame and/or restrict the actions that are relevant, appropriate or permitted in certain types of situations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These negative effects of the use of discretion can be linked to factors on the meso‐ or macro‐level, such as the tightening of budgets and the different ways that street‐level workers define and operationalise their role and their view on the deservingness of clients (Djuve & Kavli, ). The second insight, developed mainly within the public management perspective, derives from comprehensive and holistic frameworks to explain the use of discretion (Hupe & Buffat, ; Jewell & Glaser, ; Rice, ). Further, both Hupe and Buffat () and Jewell and Glaser () advocate an international‐comparative perspective and more comparative street‐level research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In relation to policy studies, street-level research is the source of data for emerging forms of neo-institutional analysis employing both social constructionist and constructivist epistemologies. These approaches might be regarded as a branch of neo-institutionalism or as Rice (2013) argues as a form of micro-institutionalism. In this family of studies, can be placed constructivist accounts which use forms of discourse analysis such as Brady (2011) and McDonald and Marston (2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bourdieusian analysis of employment services workers in an era of Workfirst

Casey

2018

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws on qualitative research which focused on worker experiences of Workfirst activation during the Job Services Australia (JSA) contract of employment services. The Workfirst orientation of Australian labour market programmes created imperatives for activation workers to monitor job seeker compliance with activity tests. As part of the broader cohort interviewed in the study, activation workers were interviewed about the way sanctions were used to discipline job seekers in street‐level exchanges. These workers had experienced the transition from the Job Network to JSA and had observed how a shift to Workfirst became institutionalised in organisational practices and culture. Concepts from Bourdieu's field theory are used to situate activation workers in the employment services field that became more managerial during the transition to Workfirst and where sanction‐based practice was mainstreamed. Drawing also on Peillon's sociology of welfare, employment services are described as part of the welfare field in which the activation workers experienced the misrecognition associated with Workfirst, which is described as a structure of domination. The analysis employs the concept of intersubjective recognition to draw attention to the subjective and objective co‐construction of street‐level interactions. This study has implications for understanding how welfare reforms affect activation workers, the contributors to the erosion of employment services capability, and the need for investment in workforce development in the employment services sector.

show abstract

“…Welfare states try to encourage unemployed citizens to become economically self-sufficient through labour market activation policies (Considine, Nguyen, & O'Sullivan, 2018;Rice, 2013;Van Berkel & Borghi, 2007). Activation policies emphasize individual obligations in return for welfare benefits (Senghaas, Freier, & Kupka, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivating the unemployed: A full‐range model of motivational strategies that caseworkers use to activate clients

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments use activation policies to stimulate unemployed citizens in finding work. Caseworkers are, as frontline workers, responsible for concrete activation trajectories based on these activation policies. Little is known about how caseworkers try to get clients to participate in these activation trajectories. In a qualitative, inductive study (consisting of observations and reflective interviews) in two welfare agencies, we identified 10 motivational strategies that caseworkers employed. The full-range leadership model appeared to be an appropriate perspective to understand, systematize, and reflect on these strategies, in particular as our analyses show that these motivational strategies can be placed on a continuum ranging from laissez-faire to transactional and transformational strategies. We found that caseworkers matched their motivational strategy to the situation and client but preferred transformational strategies. Our findings implicate chances but also challenges for activation in practice and literature on front-line workers.

show abstract

Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State

Cited by 109 publications

References 50 publications

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

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

A Bourdieusian analysis of employment services workers in an era of Workfirst

Motivating the unemployed: A full‐range model of motivational strategies that caseworkers use to activate clients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About