Street level bureaucrats put to the test of management control: a bottom-up approach to control packages in french public administrations
Sara BARQUIN
Aix-Marseille Université - IMPGT
In the context of public action modernization, French public administrations face increasing demands for performance and rationalization, reflected in the implementation of management control tools (Hood, 1991; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). While these mechanisms have been extensively analyzed from the perspective of their top-down design and implementation (Osborne, 2010), their reception and appropriation by street-level bureaucrats remain relatively unexplored (Dubois, 1999; Weller, 2007). This research aims to examine, from a situated perspective, how these bureaucrats appropriate, negotiate, or circumvent management tools in their daily professional activities.
Drawing on the theoretical framework of control packages (Malmi & Brown, 2008), this study adopts an ethnographic approach within several public administrations. The initial data collected reveal structural tensions between the application of standardized norms and the management of unique situations encountered by street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980). Furthermore, the implementation of management control does not necessarily lead to a uniform alignment of practices but rather creates spaces for negotiation and circumvention, highlighting the active role of bureaucrats in shaping control mechanisms (Spire, 2008; Mazouz et al., 2015).
By intersecting public management control issues with the work of street-level bureaucrats, this research seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the concrete effects of managerial reforms on administrative practices. Given that performance imperatives remain central to public policies (OECD, 2022), analyzing these dynamics is essential to grasp the contemporary reconfigurations of public service and the working conditions of street-level bureaucrats. By studying an emerging population in the French-speaking literature (street-level bureaucrats in administrative public administrations), we build on Siverbo et al. (2019), who demonstrated that the "pressured" use of management control tools is linked to the development of dysfunctional behaviors.
Using an exploratory ethnographic approach (Broadkin, 2011; Van Maneen, 2011), this article aims to identify: How do street-level bureaucrats perceive control packages, and how does this influence their legitimacy? What types of tensions do street-level bureaucrats experience because of control packages? How do the uses of control packages evolve in the interaction between public managers and street-level bureaucrats?
Our study stands out by approaching this issue from a different perspective. The phenomenon under study is, by definition, rooted in a sensitive field due to "the relationship between this subject and the social context in which the study is conducted" (Hennequin, 2013, p. 15). Initially, we plan to inventory various documents (internal reports, presentations of tools, external communication materials, etc.) and organizational tools through documentary analysis. Using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018), this will provide a historical and organizational context to the studied phenomena and corroborate data obtained from interviews, revealing essential structural and regulatory information for understanding the framework in which street-level bureaucrats operate.
To capture the subjective aspects of the experiences of this population, data collection and analysis have been conducted through semi-structured interviews (Evrard et al., 2009; Chevalier & Stenger, 2018) with different categories of actors. The objective is to highlight the perceptions of street-level bureaucrats regarding the tools they interact with while linking these perspectives to the discourse of public managers, who originally designed these tools. To build trust with street-level bureaucrats, we conducted participant and non-participant observation (Lee, 1993), considering the interest in the context and perceptions of the studied population. Through this close engagement, we aim to identify the sources of pressure on these actors and examine how control tools are used in their daily work through informal discussions and long-term field observations.
The main findings of this research highlight the heterogeneous reception of management tools. This heterogeneity is marked by the multiplicity of actors, each with different perspectives on the tools and performance measurement. Additionally, we observe a challenge in performance measurement, driven by organizational and structural complexity, as reflected in the conditions of the studied institutions.
Navigating accountability: How Street-Level Bureaucrats implement integrated policies
Lisa WELDEHANNA
University of Oslo, Norway
Background
There are growing concerns that policy-making in today's democracies may not be equipped to address contemporary challenges. While the responsibility for creating policies is horizontally distributed across various ministries and departments, most societal issues often span multiple organizational boundaries. For example, complex issues like migration, climate change, and rising income inequality do not neatly fit into the predefined categories that governments and policy analysts typically use (Peters, 1998, p. 296). In response to these challenges, the concept of policy integration has become one of the major ‘buzzwords’ (Candel & Biesbroek, 2018, p. 206) and a ‘holy grail’ (Biesbroek, 2021, p. 75) for policy-makers and scholars. The central premise is that coordinated policy efforts are believed to be more successful in achieving desired outcomes than traditional, fragmented approaches (Candel, 2021, p. 347).
Despite the prominence and the amount of work on the concept in the literature, fundamental research gaps prevail: Policy integration is primarily considered as a challenge for policy-making, particularly concerning how collaboration between different policy-making entities, such as ministries, can be achieved (Kaplaner et al., 2023). However, integration also presents substantial challenges for policy implementation. It forces actors from different backgrounds to work together and decide on a wide range of different and diverging goals.
Research Question and Design
Against this backdrop, the paper aims to address the questions: How do street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) make decisions within the context of integrated policy, and how do accountability structures guide these decisions? It explores these questions in the context of the work-related crime (WRC) policy program in Norway. Following several high-profile criminal investigations in Norway in the early 2010s, WRC emerged as a pressing political issue. These investigations revealed severe exploitation of migrant workers, paired with organized schemes of social security and tax fraud, prompting the integration of efforts among the implicated agencies. Since the initial launch, substantial regulatory, structural, and financial resources have been committed to integrating policy and facilitating coordination among the specialized entities at all levels. This investment has been sustained over time, with bi-annual government strategies introduced since 2015 and joint directives through yearly allocation letters. Given the intensity and durability of integrative efforts this provides a case where implications of policy integrations should be highly observable, and thus a prominent case for investigating policy integration and its implications in practice. Furthermore, the case is particularly useful due to the program structure. It encompasses various integrative instruments that are applied differently across segments of SLBs in the programme. While some SLBs receive formal instructions primarily through performance metrics and routine descriptions, others collaborate in highly integrated teams, making decisions jointly with counterparts from other agencies involved in the WRC program. By systematically examining whether, and if so, how - different instruments and structures shape practices, we aim to understand both how individual SLBs make decisions and how these decisions relate to various integration instruments and structures.
The study zooms in on one agency within the program, allowing for a deep contextual analysis of decision-making practices, fostering a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between policy, structure, and individual SLB decision-making. The analysis draws upon interview transcripts and documents, including prior research, evaluations, action plans, reports, steering documents, agency plans, routines, and mandates for both the WRC program. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 informants between January and April 2024.
Theoretical Approach
This study combined insights from the literature on policy integration with research on SLB decision-making. While studies of policy integration largely overlook micro-level dynamics, the research on SLBs typically focuses on individuals within their sectoral contexts, often neglecting the implications of cross-sectoral collaboration. Previous research suggests that decision-making in policy integration contexts can be biased toward sectoral interests, influenced by factors such as selective perception, risk aversion, and organizational self-preservation (Peters, 2015). Essentially, bounded rationality can inhibit effective collaboration, creating limited incentives for rational bureaucratic actors to cooperate beyond their sectoral boundaries. While empirical research has concentrated on organizational dynamics, these insights can logically be extended to the individual level.
On the other hand, SLB literature emphasizes the agency of individual decision-makers, while acknowledging that their actions are significantly influenced by structural factors—particularly the tension between available resources and policy objectives (Lipsky, 2010). This tension often necessitates challenging prioritization, leading to routinized behaviors that can result in implementation deficits or suboptimal outcomes for citizens. Meanwhile, key strand of SLB literature highlights that these bureaucrats strive to maximize available resources to deliver services in alignment with professional or normative convictions (e.g. Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003). These convictions are influenced by accountability relations—contextual forums to which decision-makers are answerable, whether to political principals, professional networks, or citizen-clients (Thomann et al., 2018). For instance, Tummers (2011) has shown, via survey data, a causal link between perceived policy effectiveness and the willingness to implement.
To analyse policy integration at the implementation stage, this study employs the accountability regime framework, which illustrates how street-level bureaucrats balance expectations from multiple actors, cultivating a sense of accountability that is not only vertical—toward political and administrative superiors—but also horizontal, toward other significant stakeholders (Hupe & Hill, 2007; Thomann et al., 2018).
Findings
The findings reveal the significant challenges of implementing integrated policies, as street-level bureaucrats navigate multiple and often conflicting policy goals. The analysis indicates that a combination of formal and informal accountability relationships, along with individual role identity, shapes decision-making. The subjectively experienced salience of specific accountability relations is crucial to how SLBs make decisions. While insights from organizational literature suggest that bureaucrats are unlikely to prioritize conflicting goals from their main agency, our findings indicate that this can occur when SLBs perceive other accountability relationships as more salient. This study contributes to a nuanced understanding of decision-making processes at the street level within integrated policy frameworks, providing a groundwork for further exploration of this underrepresented facet of policy integration in the literature.
|
