Do tax officials use double standards in evaluating citizen‐clients? A policy‐capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials

Abstract

In line with psychological and economic discrimination theories, street-level bureaucracy studies show a direct effect of citizen characteristics on officials' judgments, or show how street-level bureaucrats employ stereotypical reasoning in making decisions. Relying on sociological double standards theory, this study hypothesizes that citizen-clients' status characteristics not only directly influence officials' evaluations, but also indirectly and more pervasively by influencing the interpretation of other signals. By means of a policy-capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials, this study takes a first step in testing double standards propositions in the context of official-citizen encounters. The findings support only some hypotheses, but indicate that citizen-clients' level of education could serve as a moderating context affecting the interpretation of cues. The article provides important theoretical and methodological guidelines for future research on stereotyping at the frontline.3

How Do Citizens Assess Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Warmth and Competence? A Typology and Test

“…Fourth, gender and core task did not strengthen or weaken each other's effects. This result contributes to the literature on stereotyping and discrimination (e.g., Harrits ; Jilke and Tummers ; Pedersen, Stritch, and Thuesen ; Raaphorst, Groeneveld, and Van de Walle ; Thomann and Rapp ; Yang ). It could be that other cues that were not included in the experimental design are (in)congruent and, in turn, affect a bureaucrats’ trait assessment.…”

“…This is surprising because, from the bureaucrats’ perspective, there is evidence that how citizens are judged—for instance, in terms of trust, stereotypes, or deservingness—matters during service provision. How bureaucrats assess citizens plays a role, at least to some extent, in how bureaucrats make decisions about services (Harrits ; Jilke and Tummers ; Keiser ; Pedersen, Stritch, and Thuesen ; Raaphorst, Groeneveld, and Van de Walle ; Thomann and Rapp ; Yang ).…”

“…This article argues that citizens, much like bureaucrats, may rely on mental shortcuts to evaluate the person they encounter (see Jilke and Tummers 2018; Raaphorst, Groeneveld, and Van de Walle ; Willis and Todorov ). Before the actual implications of citizens assessments of bureaucrats can be investigated, however, we need understand how citizens perceive different types of bureaucrats.…”

Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street‐level bureaucrats' engagement in policy design

“…Street‐level bureaucrats are considered important players who have a strong influence on policy outcomes—mainly through their role as implementers of public policy (Maynard‐Moody and Portillo 2010; Brodkin ). Their informal implementation practices, located in the interface between government and citizens, directly influence the lives and fate of many individuals (Hill and Hupe ; Gofen ; Raaphorst et al ).…”

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

“…Lipsky, 2010;Petersen et al, 2018;Tummers et al, 2015;Van Engen et al, 2016). There is also growing attention for how bureaucrats assess citizens (Harrits, 2018;Jilke and Tummers, 2018;Keulemans and van der Walle, 2020;Pedersen et al, 2018;Raaphorst et al, 2018). What is lacking from this debate, however, is how citizens assess street-level bureaucrats.…”