Street-level bureaucrats as strategy shapers in social and health service delivery: Empirical evidence from six countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research article, we discuss the social construction of public services within the conceptual and theoretical framework provided by Lipsky. We are interested in what it means if/when street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) have an active role in the construction of a service system. We argue that there are multiple realities in terms of the construction of public services and we approach the question by deploying Lipsky’s notion on SLBs by empirically analysing middle managers’ views on how SLBs act and their role in this construction process. This paper is based on empirical interviews (N=100) collated in 2012 from Barcelona, Den Bosch, Glasgow, Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, the Greater London area, and the US state of Vermont. The research collation strategy was to include reform-oriented cities and countries in terms of developing and delivering public services. We found that SLBs have three different kinds of strategies in the construction process: policy-making, working practices, and professionalism. We found that there are no conflicts arising from SLBs’ beliefs, organisational demands, and rules and regulations. Instead, SLBs try to solve conflicts or bridge gaps between policy-making and practical work in the boundaries between SLBs and service users. Based on this research, the role of SLBs and the built-in flexibility and agility of public service leadership and organisations must be addressed and developed further. The role of organisational learning and changing organisational cultures must also be scrutinized in the context of public service systems. The analysis of professional resilience in the context of public services planning needs more theoretical and empirical attention. The resilience of organisations and the capacities of SLBs need to be researched more. Finally, there is the need for better cultivation of the role of the SLBs and service users with regard to accountability aspects (horizontal and vertical).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it