Conference Agenda

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 paper examines the implementation of state abortion laws in the American states. Despite its safety, abortion is highly regulated in the American states. The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v. Jackson, changed the parameters of abortion regulation, but state abortion restrictions are not new. Since 1988, the states have enacted over 500 restrictive abortion and over 100 protective statutes (McFarlane and Hansen 2024).

Currently, 13 states ban abortion altogether, and states that still permit abortion practice have many stipulations. More than half of these states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to seek abortion services. Of the 37 states that allow abortion services, thirteen mandate specific counseling, which is often medically inaccurate (Daniels 2016), in addition to the informed consent counseling required for any medical procedure (Guttmacher 2025a). Sixteen states have extra requirements for abortion providers that are costly, but unnecessary for patients’ safety, known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws (Guttmacher 2025b).

Considerable scholarship has been devoted to the determinants of state abortion laws, but thus far, published research has paid scant attention to the enforcement of state abortion laws. Some work has focused on judicial bypass, a compliance alternative for state parental involvement laws. One well-designed study found that about 10 percent of adolescents obtaining abortions in Arkansas used judicial bypass (Joyce 2010). Extrapolating this proportion to other states is problematic, however, because Arkansas is less populous and less urbanized than many others. More recent work has shown wide variation in the granting of judicial bypasses to minors in other states, even those with demographic profiles like Arkansas (Altindag and Joyce 2017).

At least one qualitative study has documented the burden of complying with state TRAP laws. Here fifty providers from nine states, primarily in the Midwest and South, were interviewed. Respondents noted the financial costs and time burdens of converting abortion clinics into ambulatory surgery facilities, which are not required for much riskier medical procedures. They also reported that compliance involves more interaction with state bureaucracies, taking considerable staff time (Joffe 2018). Because of security issues associated with abortion provision, this study did not identify specific states or clinics.

This exploratory study uses interviews with abortion providers and state officials in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Wisconsin to understand how different categories of abortion regulations (mandatory counseling, waiting periods, parental involvement, TRAP laws, funding, sonogram requirements, and physician- only mandates) are being enforced in their states. Specifically, we ask about patient forms and records, state reporting requirements, and the nature and frequency of site visits.

Substantively, this qualitative study will add to the scant information about how abortion regulations are implemented at the state level. Theoretically, it will contribute to the comparative policy implementation literature (Saetren 2024) by examining the conditions under which public policy related to a controversial topic is implemented.

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.