What is the role of culture in street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules and accepting informal payments for health care? The literature on street-level bureaucrats stresses the importance of both individual and organizational factors in understanding how they use their discretion but usually neglects the importance of the culture in determining how far they are willing to go in exercising this discretion. Using data from 102 in-depth interviews with doctors and nurses in Israel, and by linking the literature about street-level bureaucrats to that of the research on informal payments for health care, we demonstrate that the culture plays a key role in decisions about accepting such payments. According to our findings, such payments are a phenomenon rooted in the culture and range from the extreme case of bribery to the fuzzier area of making exceptions for favored and sympathetic clients.
BalabanovaD.McKeeM.PomerleauJ.HaerpferR. R.HaerpferC. (2004). Health service utilisation in the former Soviet Union: Evidence from eight countries. Health Services Research, 39, 1927-1950.
2.
BovensM.ZouridisS. (2002). Street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174-184.
3.
BozemanB.KingsleyG. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58, 109-118.
4.
BrodkinE. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. The Social Service Review, 71, 1-33.
5.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 253-277.
6.
CampbellJ.HollingsworthR.LindbergL. (Eds.). (1991). Governance of the American economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CherechesR. M.UngureanuM. I.SanduP.RusI. A. (2013). Defining informal payments in healthcare: a systematic review. Health Policy110, 105-114.
8.
ChiltonS. (1988). Defining political culture. The Western Political Quarterly, 41, 419-445.
9.
CohenN. (2012). Informal payments for healthcare—The phenomenon and its context. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 7, 285-308.
10.
CohenN. (2015). The influence of Israel’s political culture on the public policy process. In DawoodyA. R. (Ed.), Public administration and policy in the Middle East (pp. 231-245). New York, UK: Springer.
11.
CohenN.ArieliT. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and the snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 423-436.
12.
CohenN.GershgorenS. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration & Society, 48, 267-289.
13.
CohenN.MizrahiS. (2012). Comparative implications: Public policy and alternative politics in the case of the Israeli healthcare system. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 14, 26-44.
14.
CunninghamR. B.SarayrahY. (1993). Wasta: The hidden force in Middle Eastern society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15.
DaftR. L. (2013). Organization theory & design. Mason, OH: Southwestern.
16.
DuarteF. (2006). Exploring the interpersonal transaction of the Brazilian Jeitinho in bureaucratic contexts. Organization, 13, 509-528.
17.
EnsorT.WitterS. (2001). Health economics in low income countries: Adapting to the reality of the unofficial economy. Health Policy, 57, 1-13.
18.
FalkinghamJ. (2004). Poverty, out-of-pocket payments and access to health care: Evidence from Tajikistan. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 247-258.
19.
FarhJ.TsuiA. S.XinK.ChengB. (1998). The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9, 471-498.
20.
FilcD.CohenN. (2015). Blurring the boundaries between public and private health care services as an alternative explanation for the emergence of Black medicine: The Israeli case. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 10, 293-310.
21.
GaalP.BelliP. C.McKeeM.SzocskaM. (2006). Informal payments for health care: Definitions, distinctions, and dilemmas. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31, 251-293.
22.
GaalP.McKeeM. (2004). Informal payment for health care and the theory of “INXIT.”The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 19, 163-178.
23.
HillM. (2009). The roles of street level bureaucrats in the implementation process. In NarathS.VaroneF. (Eds.), Rediscovering public law and public administration in comparative policy analysis: A tribute to Peter Knoepfel (pp. 143-158). Lausanne, Switzerland: PPUR/Haupt.
24.
HillM.HupeP. (2014). Implementing Public Policy. London: Sage.
25.
HofbauerH. (2006). Citizens’ audit in Mexico reveals paper trail of corruption. Transparency International: Global Corruption Report, 2006, 43-45.
26.
HorowitzD.LissakM. (1989). Trouble in Utopia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
IsettK. R.MorrisseyJ. P.ToppingS. (2006). Systems ideologies and street-level bureaucrats: Policy change and perceptions of quality in a behavioral health care system. Public Administration Review, 66, 217-227.
28.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70, 247-257.
29.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
30.
LachmanR.NoyS. (1998). A Black Stain on the White Gown. Tel-Aviv-Yafo, Israel: Ramot. (In Hebrew)
31.
Levi-StraussC. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship (translation by BellJ.von SturmerJ.NeedhamR.) London, UK: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
32.
LindelowM.SerneelsP.LemmaT. (2003). Synthesis of focus group discussions with health workers in Ethiopia. Washington, DC: World Bank, DEC Draft paper.
33.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services 30th anniversary edition. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
34.
MaussM. (1967). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: W.W. Norton.
35.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Narratives of street-level judgment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
Maynard-MoodyS.PortilloS. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In DurantR. F. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252-277). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
McCarthyD. J.PufferS. M.DunlapD. R.JaegerA. M. (2012). A stakeholder approach to the ethicality of BRIC-firm managers’ use of favors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 27-38.
38.
MizrahiS.MeydaniA. (2006). Public policy between society and law. Jerusalem, Israel: Carmel. (In Hebrew)
NielsenV. L. (2015). 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, 1005-1029. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu019
41.
NorthC. D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
ParkerR.BradleyL. (2000). Organizational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13, 125-141.
43.
PetersG. B. (2010). The politics of bureaucracy (6th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
44.
PortilloS. (2012). The paradox of rules: Rules as resources and constraints. Administration & Society, 44, 87-108.
45.
PrendergastC. (2007). The motivation and bias of bureaucrats. American Economic Review, 97, 180-196.
46.
RomzekB. S.LeRouxK.BlackmarJ. M. (2012). A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review, 72, 442-453.
47.
SchargrodskyE.MeraJ.WeinschelbaumF. (2001). Transparency and accountability in Argentina’s hospitals. In Di TellaR.SavedoffW. D. (Eds.), Diagnosis corruption (pp. 95-122). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
48.
SmithP. B.HuangH. J.HarbC.TorresC. (2012). How distinctive are indigenous ways of achieving influence? A comparative study of Guanxi, Wasta, Jeitinho, and “pulling strings.”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 135-150.
49.
SprinzakE. (1999). Brother against brother: Violence and extremism in Israeli politics from Altalena to the Rabin assassination. New York, NY: Free Press.
50.
State Comptroller’s Office. (1990). State comptroller’s annual report. Jerusalem, Israel (In Hebrew)
51.
ThomannE. (2015). Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93, 177-194.
52.
WildavskyA. B. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. The American Political Science Review, 81, 3-22.
