Mammotsa Makhene
Street level bureaucrats are an important part of the government system as their interactions with citizens are considered to be part of the services delivered to the public by government and their collective actions are considered agency policy. With this being said, street level bureaucrats are often not responsible for major policy decisions, they have discretion over implementing policies but they do not make these policies law.
This paper will focus on the interaction of street level bureaucrats with citizens when citizens have a grievance with a particular service or policy by looking at the recent service delivery protests in South Africa. While many decisions are taken at the higher decision making bodies of the country,they have certain adverse effects on some citizens, it is the street level bureaucrats who are left to manage the conflict.
Often when it comes to certain services provided to the public, government may have a monopoly on such services. Private services may be too costly for the poor, leaving them at the government's mercy. This is the case for many poor South Africans. We can therefore think of this relationship as a forced one, because these citizens have no other alternative outside of going without the service. During apartheid, the poor black majority experienced poor public service delivery as part of the country's discriminatory laws. Once the country became democratic and the new government came into power, promises of improved public service delivery and better living standards were made to the masses. Failure to deliver on these promises has resulted in mistrust of the government and community activism using campaigns and protests.
A major policy change taken at the highest level of government post apartheid, was replacing the Redistribution and Development Program with the Growth Employment and Redistribution program which was meant to facilitate economic growth in the country. This move from a more social democratic policy to one of a market led and driven policy came at a cost of the participation and welfare of many of the poor. The shift in policy from a redistributive agenda to one of a market oriented framework with “cost reflective pricing”, has resulted in many of the poor being denied basic services regardless of the constitutional rights afforded to all citizens. Starting from 1996 in Cape Town, approximately 92 772 poor households have had their water disconnected or about 463 000 people. In the Cape Town township of Khayelitsha in 2000 about 14 355 households had their water supply cutoff. (Miraftab & Wills, 203).
Another policy choice made by the government with initial good intentions that is proving not to be sustainable is prepayment metering (PPM) for services such as electricity and water. Free basic services are provided along with prepayment metering as a way for citizens to take ownership of their consumption, think more like customers and not be so entitled. This policy however has resulted in a paradox of sorts. While the government has managed to provide free basic services to the very poor, it has also managed to restrict the use of services by the poor as has never been done before. Walker describes this as a paradox or “schizophrenia” stating “...the state that shows compassion for the poor, yet spends more effort trying to control the use/abuse of welfare claimants behaviour” . PPM enables disconnections to happen almost as a choice of the consumer as the city authorities need not get involved in non payment. Over time however, the middle class of the country began to prefer the PPM system as it meant self payment and provided a way to avoid falling victim to the cities accidental disconnections (Ruiters, 488-489, 493-4).
This has resulted in increased service delivery protests over the past decade, with protests nearing the undesirable levels during apartheid. Those citizens experiencing lack of service delivery or those who are are adversely affected by these policy changes, often only have interaction with street level bureaucrats, who find themselves bearing the brunt of this dissatisfaction. For the middle class and wealthy in the country the PPM system has provided them with an option which allows them to minimise their level of interaction with street level bureaucrats while it has done the opposite for the poor. “Street level bureaucrats play a critical role in regulating the degree of contemporary conflict by virtue of their role as agents of social control” (Lipsky, 11). These protests further exacerbate the involuntary interaction between the poor and street level bureaucrats through the presence of police during protests. Public service employees take up huge resources in government spending, with Lipsky estimating that in larger cities, 90% of police spending is for salaries. He goes on to say that one of the preconditions for a successful community organization effort is having a “blamable collective target” (10). With the service delivery protests in South Africa, the street level bureaucrats provide this target. Protests often take place outside municipal offices, outside ward counselors houses and other perceived government targets.
On the other hand Lipsky also believes that demand for services increases as supply increases. In many poor urban dwellings in South Africa, the growing populations of these areas at rapids rates, with new dwellers arriving on a weekly basis, means that services provided by government can almost never keep up with the growth.
Yes, street level bureaucrats exercise a certain amount of discretion and autonomy, but these are within the limits of existing policies and laws. Much of the backlash and dissatisfaction directed at them is misplaced. Those at the highest levels of government need to be held accountable for some of the poor choices they make.
-------------------
Works Cited
Street level bureaucrats are an important part of the government system as their interactions with citizens are considered to be part of the services delivered to the public by government and their collective actions are considered agency policy. With this being said, street level bureaucrats are often not responsible for major policy decisions, they have discretion over implementing policies but they do not make these policies law.
This paper will focus on the interaction of street level bureaucrats with citizens when citizens have a grievance with a particular service or policy by looking at the recent service delivery protests in South Africa. While many decisions are taken at the higher decision making bodies of the country,they have certain adverse effects on some citizens, it is the street level bureaucrats who are left to manage the conflict.
Often when it comes to certain services provided to the public, government may have a monopoly on such services. Private services may be too costly for the poor, leaving them at the government's mercy. This is the case for many poor South Africans. We can therefore think of this relationship as a forced one, because these citizens have no other alternative outside of going without the service. During apartheid, the poor black majority experienced poor public service delivery as part of the country's discriminatory laws. Once the country became democratic and the new government came into power, promises of improved public service delivery and better living standards were made to the masses. Failure to deliver on these promises has resulted in mistrust of the government and community activism using campaigns and protests.
A major policy change taken at the highest level of government post apartheid, was replacing the Redistribution and Development Program with the Growth Employment and Redistribution program which was meant to facilitate economic growth in the country. This move from a more social democratic policy to one of a market led and driven policy came at a cost of the participation and welfare of many of the poor. The shift in policy from a redistributive agenda to one of a market oriented framework with “cost reflective pricing”, has resulted in many of the poor being denied basic services regardless of the constitutional rights afforded to all citizens. Starting from 1996 in Cape Town, approximately 92 772 poor households have had their water disconnected or about 463 000 people. In the Cape Town township of Khayelitsha in 2000 about 14 355 households had their water supply cutoff. (Miraftab & Wills, 203).
Another policy choice made by the government with initial good intentions that is proving not to be sustainable is prepayment metering (PPM) for services such as electricity and water. Free basic services are provided along with prepayment metering as a way for citizens to take ownership of their consumption, think more like customers and not be so entitled. This policy however has resulted in a paradox of sorts. While the government has managed to provide free basic services to the very poor, it has also managed to restrict the use of services by the poor as has never been done before. Walker describes this as a paradox or “schizophrenia” stating “...the state that shows compassion for the poor, yet spends more effort trying to control the use/abuse of welfare claimants behaviour” . PPM enables disconnections to happen almost as a choice of the consumer as the city authorities need not get involved in non payment. Over time however, the middle class of the country began to prefer the PPM system as it meant self payment and provided a way to avoid falling victim to the cities accidental disconnections (Ruiters, 488-489, 493-4).
This has resulted in increased service delivery protests over the past decade, with protests nearing the undesirable levels during apartheid. Those citizens experiencing lack of service delivery or those who are are adversely affected by these policy changes, often only have interaction with street level bureaucrats, who find themselves bearing the brunt of this dissatisfaction. For the middle class and wealthy in the country the PPM system has provided them with an option which allows them to minimise their level of interaction with street level bureaucrats while it has done the opposite for the poor. “Street level bureaucrats play a critical role in regulating the degree of contemporary conflict by virtue of their role as agents of social control” (Lipsky, 11). These protests further exacerbate the involuntary interaction between the poor and street level bureaucrats through the presence of police during protests. Public service employees take up huge resources in government spending, with Lipsky estimating that in larger cities, 90% of police spending is for salaries. He goes on to say that one of the preconditions for a successful community organization effort is having a “blamable collective target” (10). With the service delivery protests in South Africa, the street level bureaucrats provide this target. Protests often take place outside municipal offices, outside ward counselors houses and other perceived government targets.
On the other hand Lipsky also believes that demand for services increases as supply increases. In many poor urban dwellings in South Africa, the growing populations of these areas at rapids rates, with new dwellers arriving on a weekly basis, means that services provided by government can almost never keep up with the growth.
Yes, street level bureaucrats exercise a certain amount of discretion and autonomy, but these are within the limits of existing policies and laws. Much of the backlash and dissatisfaction directed at them is misplaced. Those at the highest levels of government need to be held accountable for some of the poor choices they make.
-------------------
Works Cited
- Miraftab, Faranak, and Shana Wills. "Insurgency and spaces of active citizenship the Story of western cape anti-eviction campaign in South Africa." Journal of planning education and research 25.2 (2005): 200-217.
- Ruiters, Greg. "Contradictions in municipal services in contemporary South Africa: Disciplinary commodification and self-disconnections." Critical Social Policy 27.4 (2007): 487-508.
- Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.