By RMS
As discussed by fellow scholar Samantha Coco-Klein in this week’s lead précis, author Michael Lipsky delineates many of the negative attributes of bureaucracies in his work Street Level Bureaucracy. He argues that the bureaucrats’ limited supply of time and resources exacerbates their tendencies to be ineffective, insincere, and self-preserving. However, Lipsky also highlights the relative autonomy of the street level bureaucrat; emphasizing their importance as the human link a citizen has to their government. If the interaction between a street level bureaucrat and a citizen—as Lipsky proposes—is an “instance of policy delivery”, than it may serve as an opportunity for bottom up resistance to top down policies (p 3). The characteristics of the street level bureaucrat may therefore present an opportunity for active resistance to President-elect Trump’s radical initiatives.
Coco-Klein poses the question, “What space do Federal agencies, States and local governments have for modifying policies through approaches to implementation?” Much of the concerns and anticipation leading up to the inauguration of Donald Trump revolves around his possible alteration of the terms and entitlements of citizenship in America. Lipsky articulates three ways in which street level bureaucrats shape citizenship and perception of the state. First, street level bureaucrats shape citizens’ expectations of the state. Second, they determine eligibility and exclusion for state sponsored benefits. Third, their interactions with beneficiaries and applicants constitutes peoples’ treatment by the state (p 4).
The high level of discretion attributed to street level bureaucrats enables them to have a profound effect upon the manner in which a policy is implemented. Although it seems that public policy under a Trump administration will be designed to limit the capacity of the state bureaucracy, the relative autonomy of street level bureaucrats may remain. If empowered to utilize this autonomy to restrict the negative impact of a Trump public policy on the American notion of citizenship, street level bureaucrats may constitute one of the nation’s most viable community of resistance. For example, if a mandate was issued to the Department of Homeland Security to promote the uptake of racial profiling by Border Patrol agents, the refusal—whether explicit or simply through restraint—of an agent to engage in this behavior will limit the impact of this policy.
Admittedly, the transformation of street level bureaucrats into a force of resistance to Trump policies is a highly optimistic view of future public affairs. Lipsky offers a slew of information will constrain the ability of street level bureaucrats to actively engage in limiting the negative impact of public policies aimed at limiting the provision of social welfare benefits. He points out that the two major constraints street level bureacrats face are time and resource constraints (p 30). One could argue that under a federal administration comitted to reduce the size of the government, these constraints will become an even bigger constraint on the ability of bureaucrats to provide effective services to beneficaries.
Despite these challenges, the anticipated Republican capture of all three branches of government will necessitate innovative methods of organizing and resistance. As Howlett et al. discuss in their chapter “Policy Implementation”, the actions of low level bureaucrats are shaped by a negotiated political agenda (p 164). This is to say that the relative autonomy Lipsky speaks to, is what empowers street level bureaucrats with a high level of control over the effective implementation of a policy. In most cases it can be presumed that bureaucrats will engage in behavior that promotes the political vision of the governments most powerful voices. However, when there is a historic disagreement between the political vision of the federal government and many local and state governments the bureaucrat may engage in bottom up resistance.
As discussed by fellow scholar Samantha Coco-Klein in this week’s lead précis, author Michael Lipsky delineates many of the negative attributes of bureaucracies in his work Street Level Bureaucracy. He argues that the bureaucrats’ limited supply of time and resources exacerbates their tendencies to be ineffective, insincere, and self-preserving. However, Lipsky also highlights the relative autonomy of the street level bureaucrat; emphasizing their importance as the human link a citizen has to their government. If the interaction between a street level bureaucrat and a citizen—as Lipsky proposes—is an “instance of policy delivery”, than it may serve as an opportunity for bottom up resistance to top down policies (p 3). The characteristics of the street level bureaucrat may therefore present an opportunity for active resistance to President-elect Trump’s radical initiatives.
Coco-Klein poses the question, “What space do Federal agencies, States and local governments have for modifying policies through approaches to implementation?” Much of the concerns and anticipation leading up to the inauguration of Donald Trump revolves around his possible alteration of the terms and entitlements of citizenship in America. Lipsky articulates three ways in which street level bureaucrats shape citizenship and perception of the state. First, street level bureaucrats shape citizens’ expectations of the state. Second, they determine eligibility and exclusion for state sponsored benefits. Third, their interactions with beneficiaries and applicants constitutes peoples’ treatment by the state (p 4).
The high level of discretion attributed to street level bureaucrats enables them to have a profound effect upon the manner in which a policy is implemented. Although it seems that public policy under a Trump administration will be designed to limit the capacity of the state bureaucracy, the relative autonomy of street level bureaucrats may remain. If empowered to utilize this autonomy to restrict the negative impact of a Trump public policy on the American notion of citizenship, street level bureaucrats may constitute one of the nation’s most viable community of resistance. For example, if a mandate was issued to the Department of Homeland Security to promote the uptake of racial profiling by Border Patrol agents, the refusal—whether explicit or simply through restraint—of an agent to engage in this behavior will limit the impact of this policy.
Admittedly, the transformation of street level bureaucrats into a force of resistance to Trump policies is a highly optimistic view of future public affairs. Lipsky offers a slew of information will constrain the ability of street level bureaucrats to actively engage in limiting the negative impact of public policies aimed at limiting the provision of social welfare benefits. He points out that the two major constraints street level bureacrats face are time and resource constraints (p 30). One could argue that under a federal administration comitted to reduce the size of the government, these constraints will become an even bigger constraint on the ability of bureaucrats to provide effective services to beneficaries.
Despite these challenges, the anticipated Republican capture of all three branches of government will necessitate innovative methods of organizing and resistance. As Howlett et al. discuss in their chapter “Policy Implementation”, the actions of low level bureaucrats are shaped by a negotiated political agenda (p 164). This is to say that the relative autonomy Lipsky speaks to, is what empowers street level bureaucrats with a high level of control over the effective implementation of a policy. In most cases it can be presumed that bureaucrats will engage in behavior that promotes the political vision of the governments most powerful voices. However, when there is a historic disagreement between the political vision of the federal government and many local and state governments the bureaucrat may engage in bottom up resistance.