Translating politics into policy implementation: welfare frontline workers in polarised Brazil

Abstract

How is policy implementation affected by increased polarisation and extreme shifts in politics? In order to address this question, the paper focuses on frontline workers’ (street-level bureaucrats’) interpretations of political shifts and how these are then translated into practice. Building on ethnographic fieldwork conducted among social workers in Northeast Brazil, the paper proposes a theoretical framework for analysing the influence of political landscapes on policy implementation by foregrounding the political processes in which these agents play a critical role. Drawing on empirical data, the paper proposes ideal types of possible outcomes of translation practices – counterbalance, collaboration, resistance – that function as a guiding framework for future research.

How street‐level dilemmas and politics shape divergence: The accountability regimes framework

“…When policies are less politically contested, the salience of political‐ideological accountability should diminish relative to other accountability regimes; however, these dynamics may depend on the democratic context. In a context of democratic backsliding, for instance, political‐ideological accountability may gain relevance independently of contestation (Eiró, 2022; Lotta et al, 2022). Future research should explore how the ARF helps us explain divergence in less likely cases of policies that concern core tasks of more “typical” street‐level bureaucrats who are formally employed in the public sector.…”

“…The ARF, by modeling political‐ideological accountability, is a useful tool to systematically describe and explain how street‐level bureaucrats respond to policies that contrast with their ideological beliefs and how they operate in different political contexts. Indeed, SLBs may seek to “speak truth to power,” limit perceived political influences, or avoid blame by diverging from formal policies through individual or collective practices (Bell et al, 2021; Davidovitz & Cohen, 2021; Eiró, 2022; Hassan, 2021; Hinterleitner & Wittwer, 2022; Lotta et al, 2022). Our results suggest that street‐level bureaucrats may “correct” for what they perceive to be policies that stand at odds with their role, duties as political citizens, or their own political beliefs.…”

“…However, divergence is often politically motivated (Bell et al, 2021; Davidovitz & Cohen, 2021; Hinterleitner & Wittwer, 2022; Manna & Moffitt, 2021; Stensöta, 2011). Recently, a growing literature highlights how street‐level bureaucrats are citizens who react to highly politicized contexts (Peters et al, 2022): for instance, when facing a populist regime and democratic backsliding (Eiró, 2022; Hassan, 2021; Lotta & Fernandez, 2022), strong pressure from politicians and media (Hinterleitner & Wittwer, 2022), or when being discriminated against through ideological political rhetoric (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2021). In highly politically contested contexts, street‐level bureaucrats may even work clandestinely against the wishes of their superiors (Lotta et al, 2022; O'Leary, 2019).…”

“…Moreover, extant accountability approaches model street‐level bureaucrats in four main roles: as policy implementers (“state agents”), as professionals (“professional‐agents” or “knowledge‐agents”), in their relation to clients (“citizen agents”), and as market agents (Cecchini & Harrits, 2022; Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2022; Thomann et al 2018). Adding to emerging research on the politicized context in which policy implementers often operate (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2021; Eiró, 2022; Hinterleitner & Wittwer, 2022; Peters et al, 2022), our study accounts for the fact that street‐level bureaucrats are also “political animals” who give account to other citizens, political organizations and networks, and the political system that they were socialized into. In highly politicized policy environments with weak hierarchical accountability structures, political, ideological, or ethical principles or preferences shape the inherent prioritization of tasks and therefore influence the likelihood that a street‐level bureaucrat would diverge from formal policies (Hinterleitner & Wittwer, 2022; Manna & Moffitt, 2021).…”

“…Manna & Moffitt, 2021: 190. This article tackles the crucial issue of how informal accountability relations translate into street-level divergence. Street-level bureaucrats-such as inspectors, police officers, or teachers-are widely recognized as crucial actors who, when translating regulations into practice, may use their discretion to diverge from formal rules (Eiró, 2022;Lipsky, 2010;Visser & Kruyen, 2021). Street-level bureaucrats inherently face a multitude of tasks and need to prioritize among them.…”