2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02131.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucrats' Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program

Abstract: Personal interactions between clients and street-level bureaucrats are signifi cant in explaining why street-level bureaucrats behave as they do. Not all bureaucracies that apply program rules to individuals, however, engage faceto-face with their clientele. As more intake procedures are automated, such "one-on-one" encounters decrease. Th e author generates and tests hypotheses about frontline bureaucratic decision making in the Social Security Disability program, by applying bounded rationality theory. Th e … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
206
0
11

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 239 publications
(232 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
5
206
0
11
Order By: Relevance
“…The relational dimension of MLBs is central, therefore, to explain their performance, as supported by Kuratko, Ireland, Covin et al (2005), communication issues, structural position and interactions, differentiate MLBs from other actors and strategically position them in the decision making process (KEISER, 2010). It is also important to understand how the state operates from the inside, especially in times when there is coexistence among bureaucratic, managerial and governance models in public administration…”
Section: Further Research On Mid-level Bureaucracymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The relational dimension of MLBs is central, therefore, to explain their performance, as supported by Kuratko, Ireland, Covin et al (2005), communication issues, structural position and interactions, differentiate MLBs from other actors and strategically position them in the decision making process (KEISER, 2010). It is also important to understand how the state operates from the inside, especially in times when there is coexistence among bureaucratic, managerial and governance models in public administration…”
Section: Further Research On Mid-level Bureaucracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Keiser (2010) also uses the idea of work relationships regulation to support that MLBs -grounded on the interactions they establish -build consensus among a variety of actors to achieve their objectives. Johansson (2012) argues that these agents act as "trading managers", and Bevir and Rhodes (2010), say that they act developing trading methods with different agencies and interests for making effective policies.…”
Section: Further Research On Mid-level Bureaucracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, in a series of studies Keiser (1999Keiser ( , 2001Keiser ( , 2010 presents evidence about this principal-agent problem. Her 2001 study shows that state bureaucrats reduce access to the disability federal program when state governments incur costs associated with those programs, especially under conditions of fiscal stress.…”
Section: Principal-agent Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Her 2001 study shows that state bureaucrats reduce access to the disability federal program when state governments incur costs associated with those programs, especially under conditions of fiscal stress. In a recent survey of DDS examiners, Keiser (2010) finds that examiners who believe that DDS offices should be most accountable to federal taxpayers have lower allowance rates (about 6 percent) than those who believe DDS offices should be most accountable to citizens in their state 1 .…”
Section: Principal-agent Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Personal interactions between clients and street-level bureaucrats are significant in explaining why street-level bureaucrats behave as they do (Keiser, 2010).…”
Section: Overview Of the Literature On Behavior Bureaucracy And Publimentioning
confidence: 99%