Previous studies on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) have largely focused on its voluntary nature and related causes, outcomes, and scope, with limited attention to its potentially distorted nature. This study argues that controlling supervisory leadership and red tape can render street-level bureaucrats' (SLBs) OCBs compulsory and instrumental. Frequent on-site inspections, excessive formal guidelines, and rigid performance evaluation systems undermine SLBs’ autonomy, creating challenges in simultaneously implementing policies and addressing frontline issues. Using data from 28 in-depth interviews and a survey of 657 respondents involved in China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation (TPA) policy (2019–2020), the findings reveal that bureaucratic control and perceived red tape significantly influence and distort the nature of SLBs’ OCBs. This study underscores the existence of a compulsory dimension to SLBs' OCBs, and highlights its potential to impact SLBs' well-being and the quality of policy outcomes. These insights contribute to understanding the unintended consequences of bureaucratic control on frontline public service delivery.
AndrewsD.NonneckeB.PreeceJ. (2007). Conducting research on the internet: Online survey design, development and implementation guidelines. https://auspace.athabascau.ca/handle/2149/1336
2.
AviramN. F.CohenN.BeeriI. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1852
3.
BaekgaardM.Blom-HansenJ.SerritzlewS. (2015). When politics matters: The impact of politicians’ and bureaucrats’ preferences on salient and nonsalient policy areas. Governance, 28(4), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12104
4.
Barboza-WilkesC.GonzalezE.ReshW.WongS. (2024). The emotional toll of the COVID-19 crisis on local government workers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221108501
5.
BernardsB.SchmidtE. (2025). Do you dare to break the rules? The influence of leadership and uncertainty on prosocial rule-breaking behavior among Dutch social welfare professionals. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X251379498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X251379498
6.
BertelliA. M.BusuiocM. (2021). Reputation-sourced authority and the prospect of unchecked bureaucratic power. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13281
7.
BlomR.BorstR. T.VoornB. (2021). Pathology or inconvenience? A meta-analysis of the impact of red tape on people and organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20924117
8.
BoglerR.SomechA. (2019). Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 153(8), 784–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1614515
9.
BolinoM. C.GrantA. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153260
10.
BolinoM. C.HsiungH.-H.HarveyJ.LePineJ. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583
11.
BolinoM. C.KlotzA. C.TurnleyW. H.HarveyJ. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.
12.
BorryE. L. (2016). A new measure of red tape: Introducing the three-item red tape (TIRT) scale. International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1143421
13.
BozemanB. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Prentice Hall.
14.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. M.BozemanB.AvellanedaC. N.BrewerG. A. (2012). External control and red tape: The mediating effects of client and organizational feedback. International Public Management Journal, 15(3), 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2012.725291
15.
BrownW. (2009). Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. In Regulating aversion. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400827473
16.
BuchR.KuvaasB.DysvikA.SchynsB. (2014). If and when social and economic leader-member exchange relationships predict follower work effort: The moderating role of work motivation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(8), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2012-0121
17.
ByrneB. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
18.
CampbellJ. W. (2023). Job autonomy, role ambiguity, and procedural justice: A multi-conditional process model of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X231214978. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231214978
19.
CampbellJ. W.ImT. (2016). PSM and turnover intention in public organizations: does change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior play a role?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14567366
20.
CarpenterD.KrauseG. A. (2015). Transactional authority and bureaucratic politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu012
21.
CarriganC.PandeyS. K.RyzinG. G. V. (2020). Pursuing consilience: Using behavioral public administration to connect research on bureaucratic red tape, administrative burden, and regulation. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13143
22.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F.WeintraubJ. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
23.
ChenD.ZhangY.AhmadA. B.LiuB. (2021). How to fuel public employees’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A two-wave moderated mediation study. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X211052675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211052675
24.
ChenD.ZhangY.AhmadA. B.LiuB. (2023). How to fuel public employees’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A two-wave moderated mediation study. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(1), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211052675
25.
CohenN.AviramN. F. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats and policy entrepreneurship: When implementers challenge policy design. Public Administration, 99(3), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12755
26.
CohenN.LottaG.AlcadipaniR.LazebnikT. (2024). Trust and street-level bureaucrats’ willingness to risk their lives for others: The case of Brazilian law enforcement. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231200468
27.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
28.
DavidovitzM. (2024). Vulnerability in frontline public service: Potential threats and implications for policy implementation. Public Management Review, 27(10), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2430755
29.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022a). Frontline social service as a battlefield: Insights from street-level bureaucrats’ interactions with violent clients. Social Policy & Administration, 56(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12756
30.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022b). Which clients inspire or reduce the trust of street-level bureaucrats?Administration & Society, 54(8), 1516–1541. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211061686
31.
DeHart-DavisL. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun004
34.
DeHart-DavisL.PandeyS. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 15(1), 133–148.
35.
Edri-PeerO.CohenN. (2025). Revisiting coping mechanisms on the street-level: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muaf022. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf022
36.
EsteveM.SchusterC.AlbaredaA.LosadaC. (2017). The effects of doing more with less in the public sector: Evidence from a large-scale survey. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12766
37.
FarhJ.-L.EarleyP. C.LinS.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.
38.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu020
39.
FenwickJ.ShawK.ForemanA. (1994). Managing competition in UK local government: The impact of compulsory competitive tendering. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 7(6), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513559410070533
40.
FlemingC. J. (2020). Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: The roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1191–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619817
41.
FordJ. K.MacCALLUMR. C.TaitM. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x
42.
GiauqueD.Anderfuhren-BigetS.VaroneF. (2013). Stress perception in public organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(1), 58–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12443264
43.
HarveyG. (2021). Field research and participant observation. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in the study of religion (pp. 273–299). Routledge.
44.
HassanM. S.AriffinR. N. R.MansorN.HalbusiH. A. (2021). Rebelliousness and street-level bureaucrats’ discretion: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Administrative Science, 18(1), 173–198.
45.
HeP.PengZ.ZhaoH.EstayC. (2019). How and when compulsory citizenship behavior leads to employee silence: A moderated mediation model based on moral disengagement and supervisor–subordinate Guanxi views. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3550-2
46.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
47.
HillH. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282.
48.
HongS.KimS. H.SonJ. (2020). Bounded rationality, blame avoidance, and political accountability: How performance information influences management quality. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1240–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1630138
49.
HuiC.LamS. S. K.LawK. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.822
50.
HupeP.BuffatA. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.
51.
IngramsA. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior in the public and private sectors: A multilevel test of public service motivation and traditional antecedents. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18800372
52.
JacobsenC. B.JakobsenM. L. (2018). Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12817
53.
KatoS.AshleyS. R.WeaverR. L. (2018). Insights for measuring social value: classification of measures related to the capabilities approach. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 558–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9912-7
54.
KeiserL. R.MillerS. M. (2020). Does administrative burden influence public support for government programs? Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13133
55.
KeulemansS.GroeneveldS. (2020). Supervisory leadership at the frontlines: Street-level discretion, supervisor influence, and street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz019
56.
KimS. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720610713521
57.
KlijnE. H.de BoerN.EshuisJ. (2020). Leading frontline enforcers: How supervisors’ leadership style impacts inspectors’ enforcement style. Public Management Review, 24(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1833610
58.
KohnP. M.O’BrienC. (1997). The situational response inventory: A measure of adaptive coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00176-6
59.
LandaD.TysonS. A. (2017). Coercive leadership. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12303
60.
LaveeE. (2022). Walking the talk of social equity? Street-level bureaucrats’ decision making about the provision of personal resources. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211050577
61.
LaveeE.PindekS. (2020). The costs of customer service citizenship behaviors: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00460
62.
LaveeE.StrierR. (2019). Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: Street-level bureaucrats reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12598
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing company.
65.
LeeD. S.ParkS. (2025). Do motivated public servants behave more ethically?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231216944
66.
LevinM.FennanB. (1986). The political hand: Policy implementation and youth employment programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(2), 311–325.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2022). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Waveland Press.
69.
LottaG.KriegerM. G. M.CohenN.KirschbaumC. (2024). Not separate, but certainly unequal: The burdens and coping strategies of low-status street-level bureaucrats. Governance, 37(3), 907–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12815
70.
MarchJ. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003600
71.
MasoodA.NisarM. A. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa031
72.
MaupinJ. R. (1993). Control, efficiency, and the street-level bureaucrat. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 335–357.
73.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272
74.
MeiC.PearsonM. M. (2014). Killing a chicken to scare the monkeys? Deterrence failure and local defiance in China. The China Journal, 72, 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/677058
75.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus057
76.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. (2019). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User’s Guide, 5.
77.
NguyenN. T. H.TuanL. T. (2022). Trust in multi-level managers and employee extra-role behavior in the US Federal government: The role of psychological well-being and workload. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(2), 312–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20979683
78.
NisarM. A. (2018). Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in Citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux025
79.
NobletA. J.RodwellJ. J. (2009). Integrating job stress and social exchange theories to predict employee strain in reformed public sector contexts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun019
80.
OrganD. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
81.
OrganD. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536
82.
PeetersR.CamposS. A. (2021). Taking the bite out of administrative burdens: How beneficiaries of a Mexican social program ease administrative burdens in street-level interactions. Governance, 34(4), 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12534
83.
PeetersR.CamposS. A. (2023). Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196
84.
PodsakoffN. P.WhitingS. W.PodsakoffP. M.BlumeB. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
85.
QinX.ZhangS.DouK. (2024). Good thoughts lead to good deeds: How frontline public employee’s social mindfulness affects service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X241289943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241289943
86.
QuratulainS.KhanA. K. (2015). Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(4), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13511646
87.
RaimondoE.NewcomerK. E. (2017). Mixed-methods inquiry in public administration: The interaction of theory, methodology, and praxis. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17697247
88.
RiccucciN. M.MeyersM. K.LurieI.HanJ. S. (2004). The implementation of welfare reform policy: The role of public managers in front-line practices. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00390.x
89.
RitzA.GiauqueD.VaroneF.Anderfuhren-BigetS. (2014). From leadership to citizenship behavior in public organizations: When values matter. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14521456
90.
RosenfeldP. (1997). Impression management, fairness, and the employment interview. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 801–808. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017972627516
91.
RotterJ. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
92.
ScheinE. H.SchneierI.BarkerC. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion (p. 320). W. W. Norton & Company.
93.
SchinkelM. P.TóthL.TuinstraJ. (2020). Discretionary authority and prioritizing in government agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz018
94.
ShimD. C.FaermanS. (2017). Government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms. International Public Management Journal, 20(4), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943
95.
ShimD. C.ParkH. H.JeongS. Y. (2019). Government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior amid organizational resource decline: Can they work more with less?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17715501
96.
ShimD. C.ParkS.ParkH. H. (2025). Linking performance appraisal and government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(4), 823–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241237564
97.
ShuQ.LiuY. (2019). Public service motivation, leadership and job burnout of grassroots cadres in poverty levitation. Social Science of Beijing, 7, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.190705
98.
SimonH. A. (1947). Administrative behavior; A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (pp. xvi, 259). Macmillan.
99.
TaylorJ. (2018). Working extra hours in the Australian public service: Organizational drivers and consequences. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16658335
100.
TummersL. (2017). The relationship between coping and job performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw058
101.
TummersL.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(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
102.
TurielJ.CunninghamE.SaichA. (2019). To serve the people: Income, region and citizen attitudes towards governance in China (2003–2016). The China Quarterly, 240, 906–935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741019000377
103.
TurnleyW. H.BolinoM. C.LesterS. W.BloodgoodJ. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900204
104.
van LoonN. M.JakobsenM. L. (2018). Connecting governance and the front lines: How work pressure and autonomy matter for coping in different performance regimes. Public Administration, 96(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12357
105.
VedungE. (2015). Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 28643. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28643
106.
Vigoda-GadotE. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77–93.
107.
Vigoda-GadotE.BeeriI. (2012). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in public administration: The power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur036
108.
WaltonE. J. (2005). The persistence of bureaucracy: A meta-analysis of Weber’s model of bureaucratic control. Organization Studies, 26(4), 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605051481
109.
WeiW.WangC.ZhaiW.LiW. (2022). “Honor list” and “Shame Roll”: Quasi-experimental evidence of the effect of performance feedback under political control. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac011
110.
WeikampJ. G.GöritzA. S. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective. Human Relations, 69(11), 2091–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716633512
111.
WestW. F.RasoC. (2013). Who shapes the rulemaking agenda? Implications for bureaucratic responsiveness and bureaucratic control. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus028
112.
XiaoM.LinH. (2016). Carrots and sticks: A case study of government-caused Danwei tradition in Chinese NGOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(5), 2027–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9608-9
XiaoS.ZhuX. (2022). Bureaucratic control and strategic compliance: How do subnational governments implement central guidelines in China?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(2), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab030
115.
YuS. (2024). “Although burdened, do we need to do more?” Street-level bureaucrats’ organizational citizenship behaviors in poverty alleviation policy implementation. Administration & Society, 56(9–10), 1212–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241268163
116.
YungB. (2014). In what way is Confucianism linked to public service motivation? philosophical and classical insights. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(5), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.833938
117.
ZhangY. (2025). Governance in layers: How female street-level bureaucrats reshape state power through emotional labor. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf013
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.
