Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy

Meyers, Marcia K.; Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann

doi:10.4135/9781848608214.n20

Cited by 172 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, poll workers are temporary workers who, at most, work only a few days a year, and many work only a few elections before they retire. 2 Because they are temporary workers, poll workers are not likely to be part of the organizational culture of election administrators and, unlike teachers and police officers, are less likely to have shared norms or conformity (Meyers and Vorsanger 2003;Wilkins and Williams 2008). This temporary status heightens agency problems and enhances the discretion of poll workers.…”

Section: Poll Workers As Street-level Bureaucratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When rules and procedures are straightforward, easy to follow and applicable to the situation at hand, it is more likely that street-level bureaucrats will follow the rules and limit their discretion. In contrast, complex rules and procedures often increase discretion (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003, 93;Meyers and Vorsanger 2003). For poll workers, the level of complexity of voter-identification requirements is likely to influence the extent of poll-worker discretion.…”

Section: Influence Of Beliefs and Identities On Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the discretion of street-level bureaucrats, there has been much discussion of how to control it (e.g., Meyers and Vorsanger 2003). Most scholars of street-level bureaucracy recognize that supervisory control is often weak and the promulgation of more regulation has little or contradictory effects on the extent of discretion.…”

Section: Controlling Discretionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research on street-level bureaucrats focuses on permanent employees (e.g., Lipsky 1980;MaynardMoody and Musheno 2003), while the street-level bureaucrats of elections are temporary employees who create a particular set of problems for the local election official (LEO). Furthermore, mechanisms of control to reduce discretion and ensure street-level bureaucrats do not ''shirk'' or ''sabotage'' particular policies have limited applicability for poll workers because of the short term of their employment and limited opportunity for the development of shared norms or organization structure (Brehm and Gates 1997;Meyers and Vorsanger 2003). Finally, the street-level bureaucracy literature largely shares the norm that discretion is a valuable tool for street-level bureaucrats to ensure responsiveness and effectiveness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

Atkeson¹,

Kerevel²,

Alvarez³

et al. 2014

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As street-level bureaucrats, poll workers bear the primary responsibility for implementing voter identification requirements. Voter identification requirements are not implemented equally across groups of voters, and poll workers exercise substantial discretion in how they apply election law. In states with minimal and varying identification requirements, poll workers appear to treat especially minority voters differently, requesting more stringent voter identification. We explain why poll workers are different from other street-level bureaucrats and how traditional mechanisms of control have little impact on limiting poll-worker discretion. We test why many poll workers appear not to follow the law using a post-election survey of New Mexico poll workers. We find little evidence that race, training, or partisanship matters. Instead, poll worker attitudes toward photo-identification policies and their educational attainment influences implementation of voter-identification laws.

show abstract

Section: Poll Workers As Street-level Bureaucratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Influence Of Beliefs and Identities On Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controlling Discretionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

Atkeson¹,

Kerevel²,

Alvarez³

et al. 2014

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the literature is more evaluative than managerially inclined. Overviews of the trajectory of the literature can be found in numerous sources (Hill and Hupe 2009;Winter 2003;May 2003;O'Toole 2003;Meyers and Vorsanger 2003) and in almost every article.…”

Section: The Literature On Policy Implementation: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Implementation Only About Policy Execution?: Advice for public sector leaders from the literature

Lindquist¹,

Wanna²

2015

New Accountabilities, New Challenges

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discretion

Molander¹

2020

The International Encyclopedia of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an agent is allowed to choose between a set of alternatives on behalf of a principal, he or she is granted discretionary power. Officials have discretionary power when they are left free to choose among two or more lawful alternatives in their treatment of particular cases. Another agents commonly associated with having discretionary power are practitioners of professional occupations. Within their respective area of expertise they are mandated to apply knowledge to the benefit of their individual clients or patients. In the welfare state, professionals often act as gatekeepers who make judgments and decisions about who is entitled to what kind of benefits and services. The decisional space left open to an agent by a principal is one aspect of discretion. The other is the cognitive activity – the kind of reasoning – that is performed within such a space. What characterizes discretion as a kind of reasoning is that it is carried out under conditions of indeterminacy – the rules and standards that discretionary power is relative to allow more than one answer. Delegation of discretionary power involves agency risks, as entrusting agents with certain tasks also gives them autonomy. However, what is expected from holders of discretionary powers is that they are willing and competent to form reasoned judgments; the entrustment of such powers is accompanied by a demand for accountability. Discretionary reasoning has an inherent tendency to produce agent‐related variations in judgments. This tendency creates tensions between delegation of discretionary power and the rule of law and democratic authority. When officials are entrusted to judge and decide more or less autonomously, this may threaten such rule‐of‐law principles as predictability and equal treatment, and for democratic bodies it is difficult to ensure that what occurs in discretionary spaces is in accordance with the political will.

show abstract

Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy

Cited by 172 publications

References 0 publications

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

Is Implementation Only About Policy Execution?: Advice for public sector leaders from the literature

Discretion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About