Xia Li
In the leading precis, Scholar Samantha Cocco-Klein poses the question about how the frameworks and theories on policy implementation inform the understanding of Trump’s first 100 days’ agenda. As the street – level bureaucrats play a critical role in policy implementation and the poor are the main clients of the public services, in this precis, I will analyze the implication of the proposed agenda from its potential effects on street – level Bureaucrats and the poor.
Street – level bureaucrats occupy a critical position in policy implementation because first they are the ones that directly delivery the public service designed by policies, and second their individual actions and decisions constitute agency policy (Lipsky, p3). Lipsky offers three ways to measure the significance of street – level bureaucrats. The first one is the high proportion in numbers employed at the state and local government. The second one is the huge amount of public funds allocated to pay them. The last one is the wide scope of public services provided by street – level bureaucrats. These measures also reveal the reasons that why street – level bureaucrats dominate political controversies over public services. Besides the lasting debates about their scope and the functions in public service, street – level bureaucrats must deal with insufficient resources and the negative relationships with clients. Based on the Trump’ proposed agenda, I would assume that the street – level bureaucrats will face severer challenges in delivering public services and implementing policies.
Under Trump’ presidency, the resources available for street – level bureaucrats, including personnel, funds, time, professions, will be decreased dramatically. Trump administration proposes the largest tax reductions for the middle class and reduces federal workforce through attrition, which directly decrease the amount of public funds for social services. Because public service workers have been able to lobby, bargain and cajole to minimize this attrition (p 7), it is highly possible to cut many existing social programs to maintain the general operation. As a result, the caseloads will surge and the demand for services is more unpredictable. Even though the street – level bureaucrats will not be let go right away, the uncertainty about the future and the worsened conditions under which they work will contribute to a poor quality service they provide.
The relationship between street – level bureaucrats and clients will be deteriorated. In most cases the relationship between these two groups is negative because of the unbalanced power that street – level bureaucrats don’t need worry if they fail to satisfy clients. The social construction framework can be applied here to understand the behaviors of street – level bureaucrats. Bureaucrats allocate both practical and psychological reward and sanctions associated with client – bureaucrat’s relationship. Although clients act as individual needs or problems, bureaucrats tend to see their problems as components of an aggregate issue based on the negative social construction the clients are perceived. The bursting hate crimes and racist graffiti after the election further divide the country. I can hardly see the police brutality problem will get any better but worse under his presidency. The police officials will be more cautious or even more biased about the minorities attacked by Trump during his campaign period while the minorities maybe triggered to act fiercely when they are constantly treated unfairly and stigmatized.
The situation of the poor will be worsened. I totally agree with Lipsky’s claim that the poorer people are, the greater the influence street – level bureaucrats tend to have over them (p 6). The trend that the poor people’s situation will get worse is not only because of the decreased funds for the social services that many poor people relying on, but also because their opportunities to change are further limited. Take the education reform as an example, Trump decides to redirect education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kids to the schools of their choice, and ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. One sentence in short, at least to my understanding, is that the rich family which always have options to send their kids to the best choice they choose will not be affected much by the reform, but the poor families will end up with sending their kids to the same quality of schools that have less funding. Duflo in her notes from the Tanner Lectures on Human Values points out that our choices are often highly correlated with our environment. The so called more freedom, more choices have a profoundly different meaning for the rich people and the poor people. Under the new education reform agenda, parents are given more choices, thus high-income parents are equipped with the ability to realize their potential and can practice their freedom wisely while the poor parents are unable to perceive and seize those opportunities and may practice their freedom by not making the right decision for their kids’ future. As a result, the class and racial inequality will be enlarged again.
I came to the United Sates in the year of 2012 with my family’s pride and my friends’ support. During my study here, I feel so blessed to meet, to know people from all over the world, from different cultures, religions and backgrounds. The great United States I know is the country that welcomes, respects, and values people of all nations, races, religions. I believe the U.S. is still such a country that holds these basic principles and values, no matter how difficult it looks like to fight for the equity and justice right now and how many racists are out there. Last year when I was watching the 2015 Miss Universe Pageant, I broke down in tears when I saw the contestants representing their national or cultural costumes. That is the BEAUTY OF DIVERSITY.
Street – level bureaucrats occupy a critical position in policy implementation because first they are the ones that directly delivery the public service designed by policies, and second their individual actions and decisions constitute agency policy (Lipsky, p3). Lipsky offers three ways to measure the significance of street – level bureaucrats. The first one is the high proportion in numbers employed at the state and local government. The second one is the huge amount of public funds allocated to pay them. The last one is the wide scope of public services provided by street – level bureaucrats. These measures also reveal the reasons that why street – level bureaucrats dominate political controversies over public services. Besides the lasting debates about their scope and the functions in public service, street – level bureaucrats must deal with insufficient resources and the negative relationships with clients. Based on the Trump’ proposed agenda, I would assume that the street – level bureaucrats will face severer challenges in delivering public services and implementing policies.
Under Trump’ presidency, the resources available for street – level bureaucrats, including personnel, funds, time, professions, will be decreased dramatically. Trump administration proposes the largest tax reductions for the middle class and reduces federal workforce through attrition, which directly decrease the amount of public funds for social services. Because public service workers have been able to lobby, bargain and cajole to minimize this attrition (p 7), it is highly possible to cut many existing social programs to maintain the general operation. As a result, the caseloads will surge and the demand for services is more unpredictable. Even though the street – level bureaucrats will not be let go right away, the uncertainty about the future and the worsened conditions under which they work will contribute to a poor quality service they provide.
The relationship between street – level bureaucrats and clients will be deteriorated. In most cases the relationship between these two groups is negative because of the unbalanced power that street – level bureaucrats don’t need worry if they fail to satisfy clients. The social construction framework can be applied here to understand the behaviors of street – level bureaucrats. Bureaucrats allocate both practical and psychological reward and sanctions associated with client – bureaucrat’s relationship. Although clients act as individual needs or problems, bureaucrats tend to see their problems as components of an aggregate issue based on the negative social construction the clients are perceived. The bursting hate crimes and racist graffiti after the election further divide the country. I can hardly see the police brutality problem will get any better but worse under his presidency. The police officials will be more cautious or even more biased about the minorities attacked by Trump during his campaign period while the minorities maybe triggered to act fiercely when they are constantly treated unfairly and stigmatized.
The situation of the poor will be worsened. I totally agree with Lipsky’s claim that the poorer people are, the greater the influence street – level bureaucrats tend to have over them (p 6). The trend that the poor people’s situation will get worse is not only because of the decreased funds for the social services that many poor people relying on, but also because their opportunities to change are further limited. Take the education reform as an example, Trump decides to redirect education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kids to the schools of their choice, and ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. One sentence in short, at least to my understanding, is that the rich family which always have options to send their kids to the best choice they choose will not be affected much by the reform, but the poor families will end up with sending their kids to the same quality of schools that have less funding. Duflo in her notes from the Tanner Lectures on Human Values points out that our choices are often highly correlated with our environment. The so called more freedom, more choices have a profoundly different meaning for the rich people and the poor people. Under the new education reform agenda, parents are given more choices, thus high-income parents are equipped with the ability to realize their potential and can practice their freedom wisely while the poor parents are unable to perceive and seize those opportunities and may practice their freedom by not making the right decision for their kids’ future. As a result, the class and racial inequality will be enlarged again.
I came to the United Sates in the year of 2012 with my family’s pride and my friends’ support. During my study here, I feel so blessed to meet, to know people from all over the world, from different cultures, religions and backgrounds. The great United States I know is the country that welcomes, respects, and values people of all nations, races, religions. I believe the U.S. is still such a country that holds these basic principles and values, no matter how difficult it looks like to fight for the equity and justice right now and how many racists are out there. Last year when I was watching the 2015 Miss Universe Pageant, I broke down in tears when I saw the contestants representing their national or cultural costumes. That is the BEAUTY OF DIVERSITY.