In frontline bureaucracy research, the dominant view holds that frontline workers resist managerial pressure to “blame the poor” by bending the rules based on moral considerations, a practice labeled “citizen agency.” We suggest that frontline responses to managerial pressure are filtered through welfare state regime type. Based on in-depth study of caseworker reasoning in Sweden and Denmark, we find a “structural problem explanation” that sees reasons for clients seeking support as rooted in the structures of society—not in the individual client. We find and present two narratives hitherto not problematized in frontline bureaucracy research: the “statesperson” and the “professional.”
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndersenS. C.JakobsenM. (2017). Policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines: Are they susceptible to strategic communication?Public Administration Review, 77, 57-66.
3.
BacchiC. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London, UK: Sage.
4.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BrodkinE. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i253-i277.
6.
CaswellD.Høybye-MortensenM. (2015). Responses from the frontline. How organisations and street-level bureaucrats deal with economic sanctions. European Journal of Social Security, 17, 31-51.
7.
Dahler LarsenP. (2010). Display. In AndersenL. B.HansenK. M.KlemmensenR. (Eds.), Metoder i statskundskab (pp. 192-214). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
8.
DuboisV. (2010). The bureaucrat and the poor. London, England: Ashgate.
9.
EppC.Maynard-MoodyS.Haider-MarkelD. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
10.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
11.
EvansT. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 368-386.
12.
FerrariniT. (2006). Families, states and labour markets. London, England: Edward Elgar.
13.
GruberJ. E. (1987). Controlling bureaucracies: Dilemmas in democratic governance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
HoodC.RothsteinH.BaldwinR. (2000). The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
HupeP.HillM. (2007). Street-Level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85, 279-299.
16.
JakobsenM. (2012). Kvalitativ analyse: kodning. In AndersenL. M.HansenK. M.KlemmensenR. (Eds.), Metoder i statskundskab [Methods in Political Science] (pp. 173-191). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
17.
JewellC. J. (2007). Agents of the welfare state: How caseworkers respond to need in the United States, Germany and Sweden. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
JewellC. J.GlaserB. E. (2016). Agency at the managerial interface: Public sector reform as institutional work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 259-276.
19.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street level bureaucracy decision making: Determining eligibility in the security program. Public Administration Review, 70, 247-257.
20.
KeiserL. R.SossJ. (1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1133-1156.
21.
KorpiW. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7, 127-191.
22.
LamontM. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class and immigration. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
23.
LarsenC. A. (2013). The rise and fall of social cohesion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
25.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersenL.LoflandL. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th Rev. ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wadsworth.
26.
MarchJ.OlsenJ. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York, NY: The Free Press.
27.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 329-358.
28.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
MeyersM. K.GlaserB.MacDonaldK. (1998). On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers implementing policy reforms?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 1-22.
30.
MeyersM. K.Lehman NielsenV. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In PierreJ.PetersB. G. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration. London, England: Sage, 305-318.
31.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
32.
MøllerM O. (2009). Solidarity and categorization: Solidarity perceptions and categorization practices among Danish social workers. Aarhus, Denmark: Politica.
33.
MøllerM. O.StoneD. (2012). Disciplining disability under Danish active labour market policy. Social Policy & Administration, 47, 586-604.
34.
MoynihanD. P.HerdP.RigbyE. (2016). Policymaking by other means: Do states use administrative barriers to limit access to Medicaid?Administration & Society, 48, 497-524.
35.
NelsonK. (2007). Universalism versus targeting: The vulnerability of social insurance and means-tested minimum income protection in 18 countries, 1990-2002. International Social Security Review, 60, 33-58. doi:10.1111/j.1468-246X.2007.00259.x
36.
OberfieldZ. W., (2010). Rule Following and Discretion at Government’s Frontlines: Continuity and Change during Organiztion Socialization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20, 735-755.
37.
PiersonP. (2005). The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis new public management, governance and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
RosenthalP.PecceiR. (2006). The social construction of clients by service agents in reformed welfare administration. Human Relations, 59, 1633-1658.
40.
RothsteinB.UslanerE. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41-72.
41.
SandfortJ. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 729-756.
42.
ScholzJ. T. (1991). Cooperative regulatory enforcement and the politics of administrative effectiveness. American Political Science Review, 85, 115-136.
43.
SønderskovK. M.DinesenP. T. (2014). Danish exceptionalism: Explaining the unique increase in social trust over the past 30 years. European Sociological Review, 30, 782-795. doi:10.1093/esr/jcu073
44.
SossJ.FordingR.SchramS. F. (2011). The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i203-i232.
45.
StensötaH. O. (2009). Välfärdens infriare. En studie i svensk sjukvårdsbyråkrati. [Realizers of Welfare. A study of Swedish Social Insurance Buracracy] Stockholm, Sweden: Hjalmarsson and Högberg.
46.
StensötaH. O. (2010). The conditions of care: Reframing the debate about public sector ethic. Public Administration Review, 70, 295-303.
47.
StensötaH. O. (2012). Political influence on street-level bureaucratic outcome: Testing the interaction between bureaucratic ideology and local community political orientation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 553-571.
48.
ThorénK. H. (2008). Activation policy in action: A street-level study of social assistance in the Swedish welfare state. Växjö, Sweden: Linnaeus University Press.
49.
TrowlerP. (1997). Beyond the Robbins Trap: Reconceptualising academic responses to change in higher education (or . . . quiet flows the don?). Studies in Higher Education, 22, 301-318.
50.
TummersL. L. G.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1099-1126.
51.
WagenaarH. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. London, England: M.E. Sharpe.
52.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2004). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 87-102.
53.
WinterS.MayP. J. (2001). Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 4, 675-698.
54.
WinterS. (2003). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 212-222). London, England: Sage.
