Programme de la conférence

This paper proposes an analytical framework to examine how gender norms shape policy formulation and implementation, particularly the ways responsibility is distributed and framed. Gendered norms and biases do not end at the policy formulation stage but continue to shape implementation and service delivery, often in ways that allocate blame or responsibility disproportionately to certain groups. This paper contributes to the panel theme of policy implementation amidst contemporary societal challenges by proposing an analytical framework to examine the intersection between gender norms, policy narratives, and on-the-ground practices.

Drawing on Blame Avoidance Theory and the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and combining it with the Gender Mainstreaming and Implementation literature, we explore how policy actors construct stories about certain groups based on gender norms, and how these stories manifest when policies are enacted by street-level professionals. Empirically, we analyze two cases from Brazil where gender played a crucial role in health policy: reproductive health and vector control. We argue that gender-based narratives can reinforce preexisting stereotypes, thereby influencing the distribution of responsibility. For example, depicting specific groups as either victims in need of guidance or villains culpable for social ills. This responsibility and blame attribution reverberates through frontline service delivery, shaping both the expectations placed on citizens and the range of support they can realistically access.

The increasingly politicized and polarized climate, including the rise of anti-gender and far-right movements, heightens the urgency of this inquiry. These forces can press policy implementers to adopt or resist gender-biased frames, potentially undermining equity goals. Understanding how narratives operate at different stages of the policy cycle – including how street-level bureaucrats negotiate, adapt, or resist them – is crucial. Ultimately, these narratives affect the effectiveness of public service delivery, the legitimacy of government interventions, and citizen trust. With this paper we seek to foster a research agenda that investigates the links between gender-based narrative strategies, implementation arrangements, and modes of service delivery – while taking into account the real-world pressures and constraints that shape frontline practice.

This article presents a systematic literature review focused on gender and street-level bureaucracy. Given the persistent existence of gender inequalities and the crucial role of frontline workers as the face of the State for citizens, the study seeks to answer the following question: How does the existing literature portray gender and the (re)production of gender inequalities by street-level bureaucrats? This inquiry is particularly significant as it examines gender equity in the implementation of public policies.

The specific objectives of the review are: a) to map the main research goals regarding gender and the theoretical frameworks employed; b) to analyze the conceptualization and operationalization of gender; and c) to understand how issues of reproducing and combating gender inequalities are addressed.

Utilizing the PRISMA approach, a search was conducted across the Web of Science and Scopus databases, resulting in a selection of 45 analyzed papers. The findings suggest a rising interest in this topic, with a concentration of publications over the past five years. However, only a small number of articles consider the gender dynamics of street-level bureaucrats in their intra-organizational contexts, while most focus on their interactions with citizens.

Key themes explored include the mechanisms and consequences of bureaucratic representation, gender stereotypes, and discourses surrounding gender. Although a variety of theoretical frameworks are employed, discussions surrounding representative bureaucracy are particularly prominent. The concept of gender is predominantly framed in binary terms, primarily contrasting women with men, with limited attention to the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly trans identities. Furthermore, the intersectionality of gender with other dimensions such as race, ethnicity, class, and migration status are often overlooked.

Articles that discuss gender stereotypes and norms usually highlight how they reinforce existing gender inequalities. In contrast, articles focused on bureaucratic representation concentrate on combating these inequalities by favoring women in the daily decision-making of street-level bureaucrats or promoting equity. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how gender has been addressed in the street-level bureaucracy literature to date. It also highlights key findings and identifies research gaps concerning the reproduction and confrontation of gender inequalities.

Main References:

Durose, C., & Lowndes, V. (2024). Gendering Discretion: Why Street-Level Bureaucracy Needs a Gendered Lens. Political Studies, 72(3), 1026–1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231178630

Keulemans, S. (2021). Exploring rule‐following identity at the frontline: The roles of general self‐efficacy, gender, and attitude toward clients. Public Administration, 99(4), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12721

McCrea, A. M. (2021). The Cost of Representation: Insurance Status, Gender, and Cardiac Outcomes in Emergency Department Care. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13354

Nielsen, V. 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(4), 1005–1029. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu019

Pedersen, M. J., & Nielsen, V. L. (2020). Bureaucratic decision‐making: A multi‐method study of gender similarity bias and gender stereotype beliefs. Public Administration, 98(2), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12622

In 2015 the EC introduced the framework ‘List of Actions to Advance LGBTI Equality’, and in 2020 it adopted ‘LGBTIQ equality strategy for 2020-2025'. The LGBTIQ Equality Subgroup under the High-Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity published Guidelines for Strategies and Action Plans to Enhance LGBTIQ Equality (2022) for enhancing implementation of the Strategy in the EU Member States. Several EU countries have implemented national policies or action plans to promote equal opportunities with or without highlight on LGBTIQ.

However, at the policy implementation level it is local governments which play a crucial role in promoting equal opportunities in the communities they serve, including LGBTIQ. Successful initiatives by local governments with regards to LGBTIQ people include developing inclusive local legislation, raising awareness, ensuring safety and security, and improving access to social rights and services (The Council of Europe, 2016). Despite these efforts, findings of the third LGBTIQ survey in 2023 by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA, 2024) still indicate concerning trends: about a third of the LGBTIQ people experience everyday harassment in public spaces, bullying in schools, hate crime.

Hence, our paper aims to shed empirical light on how street-level bureaucrats and managers of public institutions understand and take action to implement equal opportunities policies with respect to the LTGBTIQ needs in the fields of educational, culture, healthcare, social security, and law enforcement. Our focus is specifically on street-level bureaucrats and managers of public institutions perspectives and responses to LGBTIQ communities’ needs at local government level as they have been little studied in comparison to LGBTIQ people’s needs (e.g. Aragonet al., 2014; Bryan, 2019; Dwyer, 2019; Keuroghlian et al., 2017; MacCarthy et al., 2022; Moorhead et al., 2024; Roseneil and Stoilova, 2011; Savage and Barringer, 2021; Sekoni et al., 2017; Simpson and Helfrich, 2005; Yılmaz and Göçmen, 2016).

The context of our study is Lithuania, which, according to the FRA research (2024) still scores high on the scale of intolerance to LGBTIQ people in the EU. Our data has been generated from (i) the survey of the municipalities’ representatives (n=58, N=60) on local governments’ programmes and initiatives in the fields of education, culture, healthcare, social security, and law enforcement, and (ii) focus groups (n=4, data collection in progress) with street-level bureaucrats and managers of public institutions and local government administration. Both survey and focus groups used open-ended questionnaires. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis was applied to the survey data, and thematic analysis will be applied to the data of the focus groups.

The findings of the survey indicate that the system for implementing equal opportunities policies is still under development in local governments. Preliminary findings from the focus groups indicate that there are individual, institutional and structural barriers to including LGBTIQ into local government’s strategy implementation plan as a social group with specific needs. Based on the findings of data analysis triangulation, recommendations to policy makers at national and local government levels will be formulated to make implementation of equal opportunities policies more effective and inclusive.

The European Union's (EU) commitment to social equality is challenged when bureaucratic discrimination impedes fair access to social benefits for mobile EU citizens. While accountability is frequently proposed as a remedy against bureaucratic discrimination, the empirical evidence on its effectiveness is mixed. Since its role has hardly been studied cross-nationally or in the multi-level European context, little is known about how administrative contexts moderate the effects of accountability measures. This study asks: First, how do accountability interventions affect bureaucratic discrimination of mobile EU citizens? Second, (how) do these interventions’ effects vary across different national administrative contexts? Our multi-method research design employs two complementary research approaches. First, a choice-based conjoint experiment with Hierarchical Bayes estimation uses survey data from bureaucrats in Spain, Switzerland, Ireland, and Denmark. Second, we trace causal mechanisms underlying decision-making processes and contextual effects using vignette-based in-depth interviews that we conducted with welfare bureaucrats in Spain and Switzerland. As expected, bureaucrats’ empirical responsiveness to accountability interventions varies significantly across administrative contexts. The results show that accountability is not a one-size-fits all solution but needs to be tailored to specific contexts, and come with a broader package of anti-discrimination measures.

Social equity is a key value in public administration and public service delivery more specifically. However, we know surprisingly little about street-level bureaucrats’ efforts to reduce social inequalities (Lavee, 2022), beyond research on active representation by minority street-level bureaucrats. There is still a lack of understanding of how equitable decision-making about citizen-clients can be promoted. We hold that this starts with “structural thinking”, i.e. recognizing how a citizen-client’s group membership, such as gender, social class or ethnicity, has affected one’s constraints and opportunities in life, possibly resulting in different needs (Watkins-Hayes, 2011). This study aims to better understand how bureaucrats’ structural thinking about citizens’ situations can be facilitated through a workplace intervention. We seek to answer the following question: what are the effects of a structural thinking intervention on bureaucrats’ causal attributions in evaluating citizen-clients’ situations? To assess the effects of a workplace intervention, we have conducted a field intervention study in a public social service organization.

The research context consists of 93 regulators, spread out over ten geographically dispersed teams. These teams all monitor the lawful use of social services. The intervention consisted of a workshop designed to stimulate bureaucrats’ thinking about structural causes of existing societal inequalities and citizen-clients’ situations. The workshop is based on sociological and psychological insights on equality beliefs and cognitive causal attributions (Amemiya et al., 2023; Irwin, 2018). The study entails a two-group posttest-only control group design. The teams have been randomly distributed to either the treatment group or the waitlist control group. To evaluate the workshops’ impact, we have used a post-test survey measure designed to distinguish between internalist and structural thinking. Structural thinking has been measured among all respondents after the first round of workshops in the intervention group (N=63). In addition, we draw on observations of the ten workshops (total of 35hrs) and semi-structured interviews with 10-15 participants to gain insights into potential mechanisms and the workshop’s impact on the workplace.

References

Amemiya, J., Mortenson, E., Heyman, G. D., & Walker, C. M. (2023). Thinking structurally: A cognitive framework for understanding how people attribute inequality to structural causes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 259-274.

Irwin, S. (2018). Lay perceptions of inequality and social structure. Sociology, 52(2), 211-227.

Lavee, E. (2022). Walking the talk of social equity? Street-level bureaucrats’ decisionmaking about the provision of personal resources. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(1), 3-14.

Watkins-Hayes, C. (2011). Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_2), i233-i251.