Street-level bureaucracy
Street-level bureaucracy refers to government civil servants who interact directly with the public, playing a crucial role in implementing and enforcing public policies. These professionals include public school teachers, police officers, firefighters, social workers, and postal workers, among others. They serve as the primary point of contact between the government and citizens, performing essential functions that support societal order and safety. The term was popularized by Michael Lipsky in 1969, highlighting the challenges faced by these workers, such as limited resources and the need for discretion in their roles.
Historically, the concept has roots dating back to ancient civilizations, emphasizing the long-standing importance of these positions. The interaction styles have evolved, particularly with the advent of technology, which allows many government services to be accessed online or via phone. However, while technology can enhance efficiency, it may also restrict the discretion that street-level bureaucrats have in applying policies ethically.
Additionally, the potential for corruption exists in some contexts, especially in developing countries, where informal payments can compromise the integrity of public service. To combat such issues, accountability in public administration is emphasized, encompassing principles like transparency and responsiveness. Overall, street-level bureaucracy is fundamental to the functioning of modern governance and public service delivery.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Street-level bureaucracy
Street-level bureaucracy is a term used to describe government civil servants who work directly with the public. The term street-level indicates the area where people are generally found. Bureaucracy refers to a state or other government organization that makes important decisions on public administration and policy. Street-level bureaucrats carry out actions that governments require and enforce laws that governments make. A range of professions fall within the category of street-level bureaucracy. Common examples are public school teachers, police officers, firefighters, social workers, and letter carriers.
Citizens encounter street-level bureaucrats on a daily basis. These professionals perform vital functions in society to help it run smoothly and safely. These workers also act as liaisons between government officials and policymakers and the general public.
Brief History
The concept of street-level bureaucracy has existed since ancient times. Archeologists have discovered that the ancient Egyptians had a group of royal couriers who delivered messages and orders from the pharaohs. These royal couriers were civil servants and the forerunners to modern postal workers.
The number of street-level bureaucrats needed within a society depends on population. In addition to population, in modern times street-level bureaucracy is fueled by technology, public administration, and government policy-making. An abundance of street-level bureaucrats is therefore required to deliver the services of public administration and apply government policies to the general public.
The actual term street-level bureaucracy was first coined in 1969 by Michael Lipsky, a renowned educator in the field of public administration. The concept became well-known with the 1980 publication of Lipsky’s book Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service.
Lipsky realized that actual government policy ultimately came down to those who worked directly with the public to implement that government policy. He identified problems inherent to most street-level bureaucracy agencies, such as limited resources, a lack of government funding, and a lack of cooperation with citizens unwilling to follow government policy or obey laws.
Overview
Street-level bureaucrats interact and communicate with the public in various ways. Historically, they dealt in person with an individual, and in many instances, they still do. For example, when a person goes to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get a driver’s license, he or she most likely deals in person with several street-level bureaucrats. Modern technology has made other types of interactions possible, as well. A person can now handle many government affairs over the phone, online, or via email. For example, an individual can now file an unemployment claim electronically. In some cases, technology has enabled civil servants to better perform their jobs and encourage public access to services. This concept is called the enablement theory. However, according to the curtailment theory, technology has limited the ability of street-level bureaucrats to use necessary discretion in performing their jobs ethically and responsibly.
Civil servants are required to operate within the boundaries of the laws, rules, policies, procedures, and regulations of their profession. This ensures that government-provided services are fairly and usefully dispensed. For example, a postal worker follows a route to deliver and pick up mail to every business and residence within that route, ensuring that no one misses the opportunity to benefit from the mail service.
Being a street-level bureaucrat often requires a certain amount of discretion and skill on how policies and laws are implemented or enforced. For example, a teacher may receive a detailed list of the required skills each student at a particular grade level is expected to acquire to pass a statewide proficiency test. However, it is up to the teacher to determine how to instill these skills in the students within the parameters provided by the state government and local school system.
Some civil servants may often encounter more complicated ethical situations that occur within the line of duty. For example, a police officer may pull over a speeding driver. The law states that a fine should be imposed for exceeding the posted speed limit. However, the police officer may note extenuating circumstances that call for leniency, such as a man driving quickly to get his pregnant wife to the hospital before she delivers a baby. In such circumstances, the police officer may not only ignore the penalty, but also assist in getting the expectant mother safely to a hospital.
A profession that requires discretion can also breed corruption. In some governments, corrupt behavior is a hallmark of street-level bureaucrats. For example, in certain developing countries, a required government document, such as a birth certificate or a marriage license, will not be filed without an extra unofficial payment to the civil servant handing the transaction. This “courtesy tip” amounts to little more than an expected bribe, displaying a symptom of corruption prevalent with many street-level bureaucrats in developing countries. Police officers, border guards, even doctors and nurses in governments that tolerate these practices are at risk for engaging in corrupt practices.
Accountability is often considered the antidote to corruption in public administration. People who are accountable take responsibility for their actions. Accountability in public administration falls into five categories: controllability, liability, responsibility, responsiveness, and transparency. Processes that promote accountability may be compliance-based or performance-based.
One theory and practice that helps manage accountability is co-creation (CC). CC involves both the service providers, or street-level bureaucrats, and service users working together to shape outcomes. Rather than a top-down approach where bureaucrats unilaterally decide what is best for individuals, co-creation emphasizes mutual participation, shared responsibility, and joint problem-solving. The combination of street-level bureaucrats and co-creation can create environments that are mutually beneficial to the official and the patron.
Bibliography
Durant, Robert F. ed. The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Erasmus, Ermin. "The Use of Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory in Health Policy Analysis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Meta-ethnographic Synthesis." Health Policy and Planning, vol. 29, no. suppl‗3, 2014, pp. iii70–iii78. doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czu112. Accessed 7 Feb. 2025. Evans, Tony, and John Harris. "Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion." The British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34, no. 6, 2004, pp. 871–95. doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch106. Accessed 7 Feb. 2025.
Gofen, Anat, et al. "Street-Level Bureaucracy and Co-Creation: Towards Theory Synthesis and Cross-Fertilization." Public Management Review, 2024, pp. 1–26. doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2429013. Accessed Feb. 7 2025.
Lipsky, Michael. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting. Harvard University Press. 1993.
Lipsky, Michael. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. Russell Sage Foundation, 2010.
Lipsky, Michael. Toward a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1969.
Vedung, E. "Autonomy and Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Coping Strategies." Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, no. 2, 2015. doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28643. Accessed 7 Feb. 2025.
Winter, Søren C. “Explaining Street-Level Bureaucratic Behavior in Social Regulatory Policy.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Aug. 2002. CiteSeerX, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e0f90ac4c52cc87d9c5b8e23a94a2e658cbbf56b. Accessed 7 Feb. 2025.