What factors influence street-level bureaucrats’ (SLBs) tendency to promote social equity and how do they do it? Social equity is one of the four pillars of public administration. It has been studied extensively, due to the important role of public administrators in correcting instances of unfairness and injustice and ensuring long-term socially equitable governance.

The term SLBs was coined by Michael Lipsky (2010 [1980]) and refers to frontline workers in the public sector who interact daily with the public. SLBs are unique players in the public administration field. Due to their sensitive role in the interface between citizens and the state (Thomann, 2015), they can use their discretion to influence public policy when implementing it (Brodkin, 2011; Hupe et al., 2015).

SLBs' discretion and coping mechanisms have been the subject of a great deal of research attention (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2022a; Lavee, 2021; Thomann & Rapp, 2018; Tummers et al., 2015), yet no single theory can fully explain their decision-making or use of specific coping mechanisms (Loyens & Maesschalck, 2010). Previous research has divided the factors that affect SLBs' implementation process into three groups: personal factors, organizational factors, and environmental factors (Cohen, 2018; Cohen & Golan-Nadir, 2020; Hupe & Buffat, 2014). Can this classification help explain SLBs’ influence on social equity?

Research on SLBs and social equity has concentrated on the latter as a consequence of the street-level implementation process (Lotta & Pires, 2019). Therefore, social equity is often regarded as a potential outcome of the use of SLBs’ discretion and coping strategies, resulting in the unequal treatment of clients. Previous research has concentrated on SLBs’ effect on social equity, establishing that they reproduce it (Nunes & Lotta, 2019) or use various measures to reduce it (Lavee, 2022; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2012). However, why and how they engage in such activity remains systematically unstudied.

Therefore, the main goal of this study is to examine the manifestation of social equity in street-level bureaucracies. Our aim is to identify the factors influencing SLBs’ tendency to promote social equity for their clients, and the coping mechanisms they employ for this task. Thus, I ask: What role does the tendency toward social equity play in the process of implementing public policies? What are the main personal, organizational, and environmental factors that encourage SLBs to promote social equity?

This study makes two main contributions. Theoretically, we hope to contribute to the literature on social equity in public organizations at the street-level. As mentioned, previous research has concentrated on SLBs' possible effect on social equity, establishing that they either reproduce inequity or use various measures to promote social equity (Lavee, 2022). Nevertheless, the factors that influence their decision to adopt this value, and the coping mechanisms they use for this end remain unidentified. By exploring the effect of environmental, organizational, and personal factors on SLBs' perceptions and behavior, we can learn more about the causes of social inequities in public organizations and about SLBs' decision-making in general.

Second, this essay may make an empirical contribution. We will focus on two types of SLBs who differ in that one group consists of enforcement professionals (Edri-Peer & Cohen, 2023), and the second consists of caregiving professionals (Sharp, 2014). The literature frequently refers to SLBs as similar in their behaviors, but a comparative analysis is required to show if that is in fact the case (Hupe & Buffat, 2014). By comparing distinct types of SLBs, we can learn more about how different organizational conditions play a role in SLBs' decisions to promote social equity.

To answer my questions, we will use qualitative methods. Specifically, we will use grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) to collect and analyze the data. This methodology allows the researcher to decipher and interpret the phenomenon through the eyes of the subject of the study, using their terms and meanings. Using this method, we can better reveal the experiences and personal perceptions of SLBs (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). To examine the research questions, we will conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with 75 SLBs (25 teachers, 25 social workers and 25 police officers). The interview protocol is designed to provide comprehensive evidence of perceptions of social equity among SLBs, the factors that affect these perceptions, and the coping mechanisms that SLBs use to promote social equity. To complete the overall picture, we will conduct focus groups with teachers, social workers and police officers. In accordance with my research questions, we will concentrate on their perceptions about the importance of social equity in street-level public organizations, as well as the reasons why they might choose to promote this value in their line of work. We will also conduct a textual analysis to cross check the information collected in the interviews. The textual sources to be used are the legislative documents, procedures, and "constitutions" of the organizations that will be chosen according to their relevance.

We will analyze the data using the Atlas.ti software for qualitative data. Following the grounded theory procedure for data analysis (Charmaz, 2014), we will inductively code and categorize each segment of the interview, approaching the data collection and analysis without any a priori assumptions about the participants' perceptions and behavior.

As with all studies, the proposed study has some limitations. First, the study relies on the self-reports of the participants in a sensitive matter, thus risking lack of objectivity and social desirability biases. In addition, it is difficult to accurately measure the construct of social equity. The vagueness of the term may impair the way participants relate to its true meaning. Lastly, the situation we present is a single case. Thus, it has specific elements and occurs at a particular time and in a particular place. It is important for future research to examine the conditions that promote social equity tendencies among SLBs, as well the coping mechanisms they adopt, in varied settings. To determine whether the results can be generalized more broadly, other studies should examine these insights in other case studies.

Working groups, expert committees, representatives of public administrations and implementation bodies form the administrative and working level of cross-border institutions. These can be described as the engine room of these institutions. This machine room of cross-border cooperation institutions plays a central role on the island of Ireland as well as on the Upper Rhine, particularly in form of cross-border institutions (Tannam 2018, 251, 2011, 1214; Beck 2018, 20; Wassenberg 2016, 316; Badariotti 1997, 221; Graf 2021, 10). Although often stated, only few empirical studies provide empirical insights from systematic comparative studies for this statement. The research question guiding the analysis in the framework of this research interest is the following, divided by two sub-questions:

RQ: What causes institutional autonomy in cross-border cooperation?

SQ1: Under what conditions are administrations autonomous in cross-border cooperation?

SQ2: Why are administrations autonomous under these conditions?

In order to take the theoretical expectation of conjunctions of multiple conditions within a complex institutional context seriously and enable and facilitate meaningful comparative research, the set-theoretic approach of fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) will be introduced in cross-border cooperation research (Ragin 2003, 180; Vink and van Vliet 2013, 212; Schneider and Wagemann 2006, 752). The research objects for the empirical analysis encompass administrative entities in cross-border cooperation institutions, namely the implementation bodies and the areas of cooperation under the political guidance of the North-South Ministerial Council as well as the working groups and their respective expert committees under the umbrella of the Upper Rhine Conference. In total, a number of N=24 research objects will be considered in the analysis.

Subsequently, cases will be selected and analysed applying congruence analysis in the approach of a nested analysis (Lieberman 2015, 244) combining cross-case medium-N on a type level and in-depth small-N approaches on a token level. Congruence analysis is a theory-focused approach testing different theories to identify which theory most accurately describes the relationship (Blatter and Blume 2008, 326; Blatter and Haverland 2012, 202). The framework developed expresses both a potential competition as well as a potential conjunction of mechanisms on different levels with the underlying assumption that ‘[…] while the mechanisms compete at the theoretical level they might complement each other in practice’ (Goertz 2017, 47). The mechanisms are developed deductively following Nullmeier’s (2021, 115) categorisation of (1) perception mechanisms based on sociological institutionalism, (2) interaction mechanisms theorised applying historical institutionalism and multi-level governance, and (3) action mechanisms rooted in a rational-choice institutionalist approach. The research project aims to analyse patterns and relations between politicisation, agencification, administrative styles, and Europeanisation with institutional autonomy (PASE-Autonomy framework). Therefore, the theoretical framework is established based on an actor-centred institutionalism (Mayntz and Scharpf 1995; Scharpf 1997) approach, enabling the integration of theoretical explanations of other institutionalism approaches while focusing on actors, aiming to identify and explore patterns for the occurrence of institutional autonomy in cross-border cooperation.

The conjunction of the absence of politicisation, the presence of agencification, an advocate style and Europeanisation is expected to be in a superset relation with institutional autonomy. The absence of politicisation by laissez-faire behaviour of the political sphere (Seibel 2014, 239) as well as the functional independence of agencification provides room for manoeuvre (Bach and Jann 2010, 450; Pollitt et al. 2004, 10). This leads to a differentiation (Haftel and Thompson 2006, 256; Ege and Bauer 2017, 76; Christensen 1991, 311) of cross-border administrations. The functional independence of agencification in combination with an optimising triggered by an advocate style (Knill et al. 2019, 88) leads to a specialisation of the administration resulting in both cohesion and authority. Furthermore, the advocate style and its optimising in conjunction with converging by Europeanisation (Murphy 2007, 295) results in a professionalisation which contributes to both cohesion and resource allocation. Cohesion, differentiation, authority, and resources are dimensions of autonomy of will and autonomy of action in their formal and de facto dimension (Bach 2014, 342; Yesilkagit and van Thiel 2008, 151; Roness et al. 2008, 171; Pierre and Fine Licht 2019, 240; Verhoest et al. 2004, 115), respectively, resulting in the occurrence of institutional autonomy.

The findings and results may encompass various paths towards institutional autonomy, autonomy of will, and autonomy of action. Furthermore, the congruence of different theoretical explanations as well as their combination will be utilised to further develop the existing theoretical framework.

Three main problems and challenges can be identified, namely (1) access to the field for survey and interviews due to its status as secondary foreign policy and diplomacy on both the individual level of actors and institutions; (2) the relevance of context and idiosyncrasies; and (3) analysing survey data with QCA, since there is little literature on concerning this issue.