Bureaucracy on the Street Level - Essay Example

Introduction: Street level bureaucracy refers to a subset of government as well as public agencies that contain individuals responsible for enforcing and carrying out duties required by public policies and laws of the state. Jones (2013) denotes that this principle of street level bureaucracy is always accompanied by the notion that these people enforce the laws and rules assigned to them differently. This is because they possess different powers, given to them by the constitution, acts of parliament, or institutions that formed them. This concept of the street level bureaucracy first came into existence in the year 1980, and was developed by Lipsky (1980). Michael Lipsky gave an argument that the implementation of policy, will in the end return to people who are responsible for implementing the policy (Lipsky, 1980). Michael Lipsky further argues that employees of the state, such as social workers, and the police are always regarded as part and parcel of a policy making community. These people are also regarded as implementers of political power. On this basis, Lipsky (1980) denotes that street level bureaucrats are people responsible for interacting with citizens on a daily basis, and they provide a force behind the laws and the given rules in their various areas of expertise. On this basis, this bureaucrat includes state officials who are always below the rank, and they have the opportunity of daily interacting with regular citizens. This paper gives an evaluation of the significance of these street level bureaucrats in the implementation of a government policy. Jones (2013) denotes that a policy is a set of protocols or principles responsible for guiding decisions regarding the methods to use for purposes of achieving a rational outcome. Importance: Jones (2013) denotes that one of the major significance of street level bureaucrats in the implementation of a policy is that they are accessible to the public, and citizens of the state. It is important to denote that street level bureaucrats consist of the police, health workers, social workers, and government officials who interact with citizens on a one to one basis. On this basis, these bureaucrats are able to make a representation of the frontline of the policy of the government. For example, scholar denotes that when a police officer carry’s out a security operation, with an aim of mopping out terrorism cells, then the officer under consideration only implements a government policy regarding fighting terrorism. Another example includes a situation whereby a school principal is able to admit students, irrespective of their physical capability. This situation will be in line with the implementation of education policies regarding inclusive education within the state. Papadopoulos (2012) denotes that because of this interaction with the citizens of the state, it is possible for the policies developed by the policy makers to be implemented. Papadopoulos (2012) further denotes that without the street level bureaucrats, policies developed by the state will only remain on paper. Scholar proves this assertion by denoting that, “without teachers, there is no education, without policemen, there is no security, without doctors, there is no good health, etc” (Shafir, 2013). Shafir (2013) denotes that in as much as these bureaucrats are able to implement the policies of the government through their direct interaction with individuals, these people are always faced with a dilemma. This dilemma is the fact that street level bureaucrats are supposed to help people in making decisions about themselves, based on the individual cases that these bureaucrats handle. However, Papadopoulos (2012) denotes that the structure of these bureaucrats job makes it impossible for them to help people make decisions regarding themselves, based on the individual cases that they handle. On this basis, scholar denotes that street level bureaucrats are forced to use practices such as screening of applicants for purposes of identifying the qualities that their organization looks for, rationing of resources, routinization of interactions, etc. On most occasions, Papadopoulos (2012) denotes that these strategies normally work out to the people whom these bureaucrats are tasked to serve. Shafir (2013) denotes that the cumulative effect of these decisions, which are made on the basis of simplifications and routines, has an effect of undermining the intended objectives of the policy, therefore resulting to the failure of the policy under consideration. In supporting this fact, Lipsky (1980) argues that these junior public service employees always work under very heavy caseloads, and they have ambiguous goals, and inadequate resources that can help them achieve these ambiguous goals. Lipsky (1980) further argues that this affects their ability to interpret the policies of the government accurately. On this basis, the government will be unable to realize the implementation of its policies. Scholar further goes on to denote that by directly interacting with people, street level bureaucrats are able to affect and change the lives of people that they are serving. For example, the police constable responsible for arresting a criminal on the street will help in improving security in his or her area of operation (Papadopoulos, 2012). Another example includes a teacher who teaches his or her students in class, is able to impart certain skills to the child under consideration, greatly affecting the life of this child. On this basis, Shafir (2013) denotes that citizens who interact with street level bureaucrats normally hope that they will be able to benefit from them on an individual basis. Shafir (2013) denotes that due to this close interaction, street level bureaucrats are always vulnerable to corrupt activities. Papadopoulos (2012) gives an example of a country such as Kenya, whereby its police force normally solicits for bribes, when they have arrested a suspected criminal. This is for purposes of releasing the criminal under consideration. This does not only affect the Kenyan police, but the entire public service, and it therefore limits the service delivery of the state. This problem is not only experienced in Africa, but it is also experienced in Asia, Europe, and the America. Scholar denotes that this aspect of corruption amongst the street level bureaucrats emanates because of their conditions of work. These people are expected to serve a large number of people, with minimal resources. To capitalize on this limitation, street level bureaucrats will engage in corrupt activities, so that they may benefit an individual who bribes them, as opposed to everybody who needs service delivery. On this basis, Papadopoulos (2012) denotes that street level bureaucrats are an impediment to policy implementation. To support this fact, scholar goes on to denote that street level bureaucrats normally act in an independent manner, portraying them as not accountable for their actions. However, in as much as Oconnor and Dunne (2009) agrees with this assertion that street level bureaucrats play a role in undermining the implementation of a policy, Oconnor and Dunne (2009) goes on to denote that the government cannot implement a policy without the help of these people. Oconnor and Dunne (2009) further goes on to denote that in as much as street level bureaucrats appear to work in an independent nature, they are not independent. This is because they are operating under an hierarchical structure whereby they are answerable to senior people within their work organization (Oconnor and Dunne, 2009). For instance, the chief of police, is responsible for the officers under him or her, and there is an hierarchical structure of authority within this force. A teacher on the other hand, is responsible for his or her actions to a senior teacher, or the head of the school, etc. On this basis, Milio (2010) believes that the problems of corruption and accountability of the street level bureaucrats lies with the senior government officials and policy formulators. Milio (2010) denotes that it is unfair to accuse these people of diverging government policies, when their working conditions are poor, and constraining. Milio (2010) denotes that even in the private sector, when employees of an organization work under constraining conditions, with poor resources, then chances are high that these employees will not meet the objectives and aims of the business organization under consideration. This scenario is similar to street level bureaucrats, as poor conditions of work, and other constraining situations and conditions will most definitely affect their ability to provide services to their recipients. Lipsky (1980) is able to depict the life and work of a street level bureaucrat as one which is always under duress. That is from his employers, as well as from the people that the bureaucrat is supposed to serve. Lipsky goes on to denote that citizens of a state will view the bureaucrat as a representative of the government, and also as an individual responsible for delivering services that they are entitled for. On this basis, Lipsky (1980) denotes that street level bureaucrats will develop some coping mechanisms for purposes of helping them to cope up with the stress and duress that they normally experience in their work place. This in return leads to the development and evolution of corruption in the public sector, and amongst the bureaucrats. This will in turn result to resentment and anger from the public, to the government, for its failure to effectively carter for the needs of its citizens. Lipsky (2008) further denotes that this is accelerated by the fact that these bureaucrats are always accused of degrading and controlling the people that they are supposed to serve. Lipsky (2008) further goes on to denote that for this to change, and for purposes of improving the efficiency of service delivery, there is a need of the government to improve the working conditions of these employees, and establish structures and mechanisms that will make these bureaucrats accountable for their actions. Lipsky (2008) further goes on to denote that motivation will play a great role in improving the service delivery of these people. However, Matthews, Pulver and Ring (2008) denotes that motivation alone is not enough to solve the problems of inefficient service delivery. According to Matthews, Pulver and Ring (2008), the best way and method of improving their efficiency is to curb and limit the discretionary powers of the street level bureaucrats. Hay and Strydom (2000) denote that the high level of discretion and autonomy that street level bureaucrats have is the main factor that makes them to treat citizens in an inappropriate manner. In the view of the scholar, street level bureaucrats are always faced with tough choices while implementing a policy, and interacting with the citizens of a state. Lipsky (1980) defines discretion as an aspect whereby a bureaucrat has the freedom of making a decision, and implementing it within a particular setting. It is the discretionary ability of a bureaucrat that makes him not accountable to the citizens that they are contracted to serve. However, Hay and Strydom (2000) denote that discretion is not a bad issue, and it is always important for bureaucrats to have it. Hay and Strydom (2000) gives an example of a police officer on patrol, which on most occasions will have to act through discretion for purposes of protecting his life, as well as that of his clients. On this basis, scholar suggests a situation whereby the government should develop a policy that will make these bureaucrats also accountable to the people they serve. This is by developing a performance appraisal system, whereby the bureaucrats will be appraised and evaluated by the citizens, based on each and every decision they make. This will greatly help to curb corruption, and will make the bureaucrat act in wisdom when faced with difficult circumstances or situations at their work place. On this basis, the policies developed by policy formulators will be effectively implemented, to the satisfaction of the government, policy formulators, bureaucrats, and citizens of the state. Conclusion: In conclusion, street level bureaucrats play a significant role in the implementation of a policy. These people act as a link between the government and the citizens of the state. On this basis, this is a group of workers that policy formulators cannot do without, and if they try to do so, their policies will just be a policy on paper. Just as discussed in this paper, street level bureaucrats are able to implement a policy, because they are in direct contact with the citizens of the state. On this basis, they are able to explain to these citizens what the policy under consideration is, and why it is important. Furthermore, it is important to understand that these people are always faced with limitations, and this limitation is that they are not accountable for their actions, as the citizens of a state would want them to be. This is because these bureaucrats normally enjoy an aspect referred to as discretionary powers. Bibliography: Hay, D., & Strydom, K. (2000). Quality Assessment Considerations in Programme Policy Formulation and Implementation. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 209-218. Jones, T. (2013). Understanding education policy the Four education orientations framework. Dordrecht: Springer. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsky, M. (2008). Discussion report: Pedagogy for policy analysis and management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 1045-1049. Matthews, A., Pulver, L. R., & Ring, I. T. (2008). Strengthening the link between policy formulation and implementation of Indigenous health policy directions. Australian Health Review , 32(4), 613. Milio, S. (2010). From policy to implementation in the European Union the challenge of a multi- level governance system. London: Tauris Academic Studies ;. Oconnor, D., & Dunne, W. (2009). Conceptualizing Multifunctionality in the Irish Policy Context—Issues for Policy Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(4), 333-346. Papadopoulos, T. (2012). Public sector reform using information technologies transforming policy into practice. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Shafir, E. (2013). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read More