Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-5
A Cross-Sectional Study on the Relationship Between Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Role Identity and Their Discretionary Decision-Making Practice toward Citizen-Clients
This study tests the hypothesis that the role identity of street-level bureaucrats is related to variation in their discretionary decisions in relation to the behavior of citizen-clients. The study draws on crosssectional survey data on 465 officers from prisons in Denmark. Results from the study show a negative correlation between prison officers role identity as formalistic (state-agent) and the likelihood of differentiating in response to citizen-clients’ behavior. Correspondingly, the results shows a positive relationship between informal rule identification (citizen-agent) and differential responses against citizen-client behavior. The findings indicate a causal relationship between street-level bureaucrats’ role identity and their discretionary decisions.
AltreiterC.LeibetsederB. (2015). Constructing inequality: Deserving and undeserving clients in Austrian social assistance offices. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1), 127–145.
2.
AndersenL. B.SalomonsenH. H. (2010, September8–10). Men and women in public organizations. Do they behave differently? And why should they? [Conference session]. Draft article presented at the EGPA annual Conference. Permanent study group 3: Public Personnel Policies (32nd ed.).
3.
AndersenS. C.GuulT. S. (2019). Reducing minority discrimination at the front Line—Combined Survey and field experimental evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 429–444.
4.
ArnoldH.LieblingA.TaitS. (2007). Prison officers and prison culture. In JewkesY. (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 471–495). Willan Publishing.
5.
AshforthB. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
BartelsK. P. R. (2013). Public Encounters: The History and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469–483.
7.
BellE.SmithK. (2022). Working within a system of administrative burden: How street-level bureaucrats’ role perceptions shape access to the promise of higher education. Administration & Society, 54(2), 167–211.
8.
BergA. M. (2006). Transforming public services – Transforming the public servant?International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6), 556–568.
9.
BoerN. (2020). How do citizens assess street-level bureaucrats’ warmth and competence? A typology and test. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 532–542.
10.
BraithwaiteV. (2007). Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29(1), 3–10.
11.
CrawleyE.CrawleyP. (2008). Understanding prison officers: Culture, cohesion and conflicts. In BennettJ.CreweB.WahidinA. (Eds.), Understanding prison staff (pp. 134–152). Willan Publishing.
12.
CrawleyE. M. (2004). Emotion and performance. Prison officers and the presentation of self in prisons. Punishment & Society, 6(4), 411–427.
13.
CreweB. (2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455–468.
14.
de BoerN. (2019). Street-level enforcement style: A multidimensional measurement instrument. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 380–391.
15.
DeHart-DavisL. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.
16.
DuboisV. (2010). The bureauctrat and the poor: Encounters in French welfare offices. Ashgate.
17.
EvansT. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 739–758.
18.
EvansT. (2014). The moral economy of street-level policy work. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 14(2), 381–399.
19.
FaveroN.BullockJ. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308.
20.
FlemingC. J. (2020). Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: The roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1191–1216.
21.
GofenA.ShellyS.GassnerD. (2018). Levels of analysis in street-level bureacracy research. In HupeP. (Ed.), Research Handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in Context (pp. 336–350). Elgar.
22.
GrantA. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.
23.
GuulT. S.PedersenM. J.PetersenN. B. G. (2021). Creaming among caseworkers: Effects of client competence and client motivation on caseworkers’ willingness to help. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 12–22.
24.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A.MastracciS. H. (2008). Emotional labor. – Putting the service in Public Service. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
25.
HaslamS. A.JettenJ.PostmesT.HaslamC. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23.
26.
HassanM. S.AriffinR. N. R.MansorN.Al HalbusiH. (2021). The moderating role of willingness to implement policy on street-level bureaucrats’ multidimensional enforcement style and discretion. International Journal of Public Administration, 1(3), 1–15.
27.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30.
28.
HupeP.BuffatA. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.
29.
HupeP.HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
30.
JakobsenM.JamesO.MoynihanD.NabatchiT. (2019). JPART virtual issue on citizen-state interactions in public administration research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), e8–e15.
31.
JakobsenM.JensenR. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.
32.
JensenD. C.PedersenL. B. (2017). The impact of empathy—Explaining diversity in street-level decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 433–449.
33.
JilkeS.TummersL. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238.
34.
KaganR. A. (1994). Regulatory enforcement. In RoosenbloomD. H.SchwartzR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of regulation and administrative law (pp. 383–423). Marcel Dekker.
35.
KeiserL. R. (Ed.). (2003, October9–11). The determinants of street-level bureaucratic behavior: Gate-keeping in the social security disability program [Conference session]. National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown University, Washington DC.
36.
KinnunenA. (2003). Intensified police drug control in the metropolitan Helsinki area. In PedersenE. H.TigerstedtC. (Eds.), Regulating drugs – Between users, the police and social workers (pp. 53–75). NadPublication 43.
37.
KolindT. (2015). Drugs and discretionary power in prisons: The officer’s perspective. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 799–807.
38.
KolindT.FrankV. A.LindbergO.TourunenJ. (2013). Prison-based drug treatment in Nordic political discourse: An elastic discursive construct. European Journal of Criminology, 10(6), 659–674.
39.
LaursenL.JepsenJ. (2002). Danish drug Policy—an ambivalent balance between repression and welfare. Cross-National Drug Policy, 582(2), 20–36.
40.
LoyensK. (2012). Integrity secured: Understanding ethical decision making among street-level bureaucrats in the Belgian Labor Inspections and Federal Police [Doctoral dissertation]. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
41.
LoyensK.MaesschalckJ. (2010). Towards a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society, 42(1), 66–100.
42.
LoyensK.SchottC.SteenT. (2019). Strict enforcement or responsive regulation? How inspector–inspectee interaction and inspectors’ role Identity shape decision making. In deWalleV.StevenR. N. (Eds.), The inspectors: Enforcement at the front line of (pp. 79–94). Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
MasciniP.WijkE. V. (2009). Responsive regulation at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 27–47.
44.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two Narratives of Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
45.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Narratives of street-level judgment. University of Michigan Press.
46.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 16–23.
47.
MayP. J.WinterS. C. (2009). Politicians, managers and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 329–358.
48.
MayP.WinterS. (1999). Regulatory enforcement and compliance: Examining Danish agro-environmental policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(4), 625–651.
49.
MayP.WinterS. (2000). Reconsidering styles of regulatory enforcement: Patterns in Danish agro-environmental inspection. Law and Policy, 22(2), 143–173.
50.
McDonaldC.MarstonG. (2006). Room to move? Professional discretion at the frontline of welfare-to-work. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 171–182.
51.
MeierK. J. (2000). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of Government. Harcourt College Publishers.
52.
MeyersM. K.NielsenV. L. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public administration (pp. 305–319). SAGE.
53.
MillerL. (2004). Good cop—bad cop: Problem officers, law enforcement culture, and strategies for success. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19(2), 30–48.
54.
MonroeM. C.DamianC. A. (2012). Increasing response rates to web-based surveys. Journal of Extension, 50(6), 30–48.
55.
NielsenV. L. (2006). Are regulators responsive?Law & Policy, 28(3), 395–416.
56.
NielsenV. L. (2015a). Personal attributes and institutions: Gender and the behavior of public employees. Why gender matters to not only “gendered policy areas”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1005–1029.
57.
NielsenV. L. (2015b). Law enforcement behavior of regulatory inspectors. In HupeP.HilM.BuffatA. (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 115–131). The Policy Press at the University of Bristol.
58.
NielsenV. L.NielsenH. Ø.BisgaardM. (2021). Citizen reactions to bureaucratic encounters: Different ways of coping with public authorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(2), 381–398.
59.
NiemeläM. (2011). Public and social security officials’ attributions of poverty in Finland. European Journal of Social Security, 13(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/138826271101300303
60.
NylanderP. Å.LindbergO.BruhnA. (2011). Emotional labour and emotional strain among Swedish prison officers. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 469–483.
61.
OberfieldZ. W. (2010). Rule following and discretion at government’s Frontlines: Continuity and change during organization socialization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 735–755.
62.
OorschotW. V. (2005). A European deservingness culture? Public deservingness perceptions in European welfare states. CCWS Working article no, 2005–2036.
63.
OsborneS. P.StrokoschK. (2013). It takes two to Tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(s1), s31–s47.
64.
PaulhusD. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. R. S.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological (pp. 17–69). Academic Press.
65.
PedersenM. J.StritchJ. M.ThuesenF. (2018). Punishment on the frontlines of public service delivery: Client ethnicity and caseworker sanctioning decisions in a Scandinavian welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 339–354.
66.
PivorasS.KaselisM. (2019). The impact of client status on street-level bureaucrats’ identity and informal accountability. Public Integrity, 21(2), 182–194.
67.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
68.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
69.
PrattM. G.DuttonJ. E. (2000). Owning up or opting out: The role of emotions and identities in issue ownership. In AshkanasyN.HärtelC.ZerbeW. (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 103–129). Quorum Books.
70.
PrattM. G.RockmannK. W.KaufmannJ. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The rolework of and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.
71.
Preston-shootM. (2001). Regulating the road of good intentions: Observations on the relationship between policy, regulations and practice in social work. Practice, 13(4), 5–20.
72.
RaaphorstN.LoyensK. (2020). From poker games to kitchen tables: How social dynamics affect frontline decision making. Administration & Society, 52(1), 31–56.
73.
RiceD. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Sosiety, 45(9), 1038–1062.
74.
RothsteinB. (2008). Political legitimacy and the welfare state: Five basic models. QoG Working Paper Series, September2008.
75.
RutherfordA.MeierK. J. (2015). Managerial goals in a performance-driven system: Theory and empirical tests in higher education. Public Administration, 93(1), 17–33.
76.
ScharlemannJ. P. W.EckelC. C.KacelnikA.WilsonR. K. (2001). The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(5), 617–640.
77.
SchottC. (2015). Playing a role- But wich one? How public service motivation and professionalism affect decision-making in dilemma situations [Doctoral dissertation]. Leiden University.
78.
ScottD. A. V. I. D. (2008). Creating ghosts in the penal machine: Prison officer occupational morality and the techniques of denial. In BennettJ.CreweB.WahidinA. (Eds.), Understanding prison staff (pp. 168–186). Willan Publishing.
79.
StetsJ. E. (2018). Identity theory. In BurkeP. J. (Ed.), Contemporary Social Psychological Theories (pp. 81–111). Standford Universty Press.
80.
StrykerS.BurkeP. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.
81.
TaitS. (2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 440–454.
82.
TummersL. (2012). Policy alienation of public professionals: The construct and its measurement. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 516–525.
83.
TummersL.BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.
84.
VandenabeeleW. (2008). Development of a public service motivation measurement scale: Corroborating and extending Perry’s measurement instrument. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 143–167.
85.
van KleefD.SchottC.SteenT. (2015). Inspections services and inter-rater reliability: Differentiating professional role identities of Dutch veterinary inspectors. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(2), 132–142.
86.
Vigoda-GadotE.MeislerG. (2010). Emotions in management and the management of emotions: The impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sector employees. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 72–86.
87.
Watkins-HayesC. (2011). Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research, 21(Supplement 2), 233–251.
88.
WilliamsL. J.HartmanN.CavazotteF. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
