Just or Unjust? How Ideological Beliefs Shape Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Perceptions of Administrative Burden

Abstract

Existing research finds that increases in administrative burden reduce client access, political efficacy, and equity. However, extant literature has yet to investigate how administrative burden policies are interpreted by street-level bureaucrats (SLB), whose values and beliefs structure uses of discretion and client experiences of programs. In this article, we utilize quantitative and qualitative data to examine SLB policy preferences regarding administrative burden in Oklahoma's Promise-a means-tested college access program. Our findings demonstrate that SLB in our sample interpret administrative burden policies through the lens of political ideology. Conservative SLB express significantly more support for administrative burden policies, arguing that these policies prevent fraud and demonstrate client deservingness. In contrast, predominantly liberal SLB justify opposition to administrative burden by arguing that the requirements undermine social equity. Together, our findings reveal that SLB political ideology shapes interpretations of administrative burden and perceptions of client deservingness in Oklahoma's Promise.

Personality and Public Administration: Policymaker Tolerance of Administrative Burdens in Welfare Services

“…As shown in Figure 3, both conscientiousness and openness to experience are more predictive of city councilors’ burden tolerance than is personal experience as a benefit recipient. Moreover, the predictive power of both conscientiousness and openness to experience are comparable in size to that of party identification and about half of that of political ideology, which has been presented as the dominant predictor of burden tolerance for these types of social welfare programs (Bell et al 2020; Herd and Moynihan 2018).…”

“…Prior research emphasizes the role of political ideology and partisan opposition toward the policies in question (e.g. Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021; Moynihan, Herd, and Rigby 2016; Bell et al 2020). Thus, when examining the relationship between personality traits and burden tolerance, we take the role of political ideology into account.…”

“…Previous research has found that conscientiousness is significantly associated with ideological conservatism, both overall and in the economic and social domains (e.g., Gerber et al 2011; see also Carney et al 2008). Conservatism is negatively correlated with policy support for social welfare policies (e.g., Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003) and has been found to correlate positively with burden tolerance (Bell et al 2020; Keiser and Miller 2020). Studies also emphasize that a “motivation to establish and follow rules and norms in a wide variety of domains inside and outside of politics” is characteristic of conservatives (Jost et al 2003, p. 347).…”

Discretion of the Future: Conceptualizing Everyday Acts of Collective Creativity at the Street‐Level

“…These coping mechanisms oppress the use of discretion to respond to clients’ individual needs or to address complex dimensions of work. In addition, many studies exposed additional risks involved in street‐level bureaucrats' use of discretion, such as unequal and arbitrary treatment based on racial stereotypes, ideological preferences, or other moral judgments (Bell et al 2020; Harrits 2019; Maynard‐Moody and Musheno 2003). Interestingly, the arguments made here suggest that it is not that street‐level bureaucrats oppose or resist policy aims, they just find responsive and engaged practice incompatible with the realities of their work (Brodkin 2012).…”

High‐Stakes Administrative Discretion: What Drives Body‐Worn Camera Activations?

“…Competing views of discretion in BWC activation emerge. First, in the principal–agent literature (Brehm and Gates 1999; Miller 2005), public servants may act according to personal desires and attitudes rather than guided by their “principals,” the agency, and the community (Bell et al 2020). Scholars have applied the principal–agent explanation in policing, with a pessimistic view regarding “the ability of rules and supervision to shape officer behavior, citing officer ‘predispositions’ and the difficulty of observing police activity” (Mummolo 2018, 18).…”