Public officials have been shown to discriminate against citizens based on race and gender. We suggest that bureaucrats also discriminate based on political beliefs that citizens reveal to them. We support this argument with evidence from the application of freedom of assembly rights in the context of gay marriage. We confront German city administrations with requests about the organization of a political rally and randomize the underlying political belief and cause: the promotion of or opposition to same-sex marriage. We find that none of these causes receives discriminatory treatment per se. Instead, further explorative, yet theory-guided, analysis indicates that the cultural and political environment within which bureaucracies are embedded determines which of the two requests receives worse and less helpful answers. I.e. the treatment effect seems to be moderated by the local prevalence of Catholicism and the strength of sexually conservative political parties that oppose same-sex marriage.
BelléN (2014) Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24: 109–136.
2.
BozemanBScottP (1992) Laboratory experiments in public policy and management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2: 293–313.
3.
ButlerDMBroockmanDE (2011) Do politicians racially discriminate against constituents? A field experiment on state legislators. American Journal of Political Science55: 463–477.
ChristensenRKSzmerJStritchJM (2012) Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts: Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22: 625–648.
6.
CowleyP (1998) Unbridled passions? Free votes, issues of conscience and the accountability of British members of parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies4: 70–88.
7.
DaroliaRKoedelCMartorellPet al. (2015) Do employers prefer workers who attend for-profit colleges? Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management34: 881–903.
8.
EinsteinKLGlickDM (2016) Does race affect access to government services? An experiment exploring street-level bureaucrats and access to public housing. American Journal of Political Science, 61: 100–116.
9.
ErnstRNguyenLTaylorKC (2013) Citizen control: Race at the welfare office. Social Science Quarterly94: 1283–1307.
10.
FinkS (2008) Politics as usual or bringing religion back in? The influence of parties, institutions, economic interests and religion on embryo research policies. Comparative Political Studies41: 1631–1656.
11.
FordingRCSossJSchramSF (2007) Devolution, discretion, and the effect of local political values on TANF sanctioning. Social Service Review81: 285–316.
12.
GrohsSAdamCKnillC (2016) Are some citizens more equal than others? Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration Review76: 155–164.
13.
Haider-MarkelDPKaufmanMS (2006) Public opinion and policy-making in the culture wars: Is there a connection between public opinion and state policy on gay and lesbian issues? In: Cohen JE (ed.) Public Opinion in State Politics. pp. 163–182.
14.
JakobsenM (2013) Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23: 27–54.
15.
JakobsenMAndersenSC (2013) Intensifying social exchange relationships in public organizations: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management32: 60–82.
16.
JamesO (2011) Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21: 399–418.
17.
JamesOVan RyzinGG (2017) Motivated reasoning about public performance: An experimental study of how citizens judge the Affordable Care Act. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27: 197–209.
18.
JilkeSVan De WalleSKimS (2016a) Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration. Public Administration Review76: 69–72.
19.
JilkeSVan RyzinGGVan De WalleS (2016b) Responses to decline in marketized public services: An experimental evaluation of choice overload. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26: 421–432.
20.
KaasLMangerC (2012) Ethnic discrimination in Germany’s labour market: A field experiment. German Economic Review13: 1–20.
21.
KaufmanH (1960) The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
22.
KeiserLR (1999) State bureaucratic discretion and the administration of social welfare programs: The case of social security disability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1: 87–106.
23.
KeiserLRMueserPRChoiS-W (2004) Race, bureaucratic discretion, and the implementation of welfare reform. American Journal of Political Science48: 314–327.
24.
KeiserLRWilkingsVMMeierKJet al. (2002) Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review96: 553–564.
25.
KnillC (2013) The study of morality policy: Analytical implications from a public policy perspective. Journal of European Public Policy20: 309–317.
26.
KnillCAdamCHurkaS (eds) (2015) On the Road to Permissiveness? Change and Convergence of Moral Regulation in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
KnillCPreidelCNebelK. (2014) Brake rather than barrier: The impact of the Catholic Church on morality policies in Western Europe. West European Politics37: 845–866.
28.
LewisGB (2001) Barriers to security clearances for gay men and lesbians: Fear of blackmail or fear of homosexuals?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory11: 539–558.
29.
LiangJ (2015) The shadow of the politics of deservedness? The implications of group-centric policy context for environmental policy implementation inequalities in the United States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26: 552–570.
30.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
31.
MayPJWinterSC (2007) Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19: 453–476.
32.
Maynard-MoodySW (2000) State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2: 329–358.
33.
Maynard-MoodySWMushenoMC (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
34.
MinkenbergM (2003) The policy impact of church-state relations: Family policy and abortion in Britain, France, and Germany. West European Politics26: 195–217.
35.
MontgomeryJMNyhanBTorresM (2018) How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science62: 760–775.
36.
MooneyCZ (1999) The politics of morality policy. Policy Studies Journal27: 675–680.
37.
Nicholson-CrottyJNicholson-CrottyS (2004) Social construction and policy implementation: Inmate health as a public health issue. Social Science Quarterly85: 240–256.
38.
NielsenPABaekgaardM (2015) Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25: 545–569.
39.
OldmixonEA (2002) Culture wars in the congressional theater: How the U.S. House of Representatives legislates morality, 1993–1998. Social Science Quarterly83: 775–788.
40.
PiatakJS (2015) Understanding the implementation of Medicaid and Medicare: Social construction and historical context. Administration & Society49: 1165–1190.
41.
RiceD (2012) Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society45: 1038–1062.
42.
SabatierPALoomisJMcCarthyC (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science39: 204–242.
43.
SabharwalM (2013) From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25: 399–426.
44.
SchneiderAIngramH (1993) Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review87: 334–347.
45.
ScholzJTWeiFH (1986) Regulatory enforcement in a federalist system. American Political Science Review80: 1249–1270.
46.
SchramSFSossJFordingRCet al. (2009) Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review74: 398–422.
47.
SmithTATatalovichR (2003) Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies. Peterborogh: Broadview Press.
48.
Solt F and Yue H (2015) Interplot: Plot the Effects of Variables in Interaction Terms. Available at The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=interplot.
49.
StensötaH (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 Theory22: 553–571.
50.
TheobaldNAHaider-MarkelDP (2009) Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19: 409–426.
51.
TummersLLGBekkersVVinkEet al. (2015) Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25: 1099–1126.
52.
WarnerCM (2000) Confessions of an Interest Group: The Catholic Church and Political Parties in Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
WhiteARNathanNLFallerJK (2015) What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science Review109: 129–142.
54.
WorthyBJohnPVannoniM (2016) Transparency at the Parish pump: A field experiment to measure the effectiveness of freedom of information requests in England. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27: 485–500.
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.
