Street‐level bureaucrats as policy entrepreneurs: Action strategies for flexible community governance in China

Abstract

Street‐level bureaucrats (SLBs) can act as policy entrepreneurs to cope with the dilemmas in policy implementation. However, there is insufficient knowledge about whether the strategies adopted by them that SLBs in the role of policy entrepreneurs are institution sensitive. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge regarding the elements that impel and support such entrepreneurial actions. Based on China's community governance, this article attempts to clarify the strategies employed by SLBs to that result in their becoming policy entrepreneurs. It was observed that the Chinese SLBs primarily employed three strategies to act as policy entrepreneurs, which shows that different institutional contexts may shape the various strategies. This article indicates that the opportunity structure of the institution, in this case, the Chinese bureaucracy, enables SLBs to act entrepreneurially and the success of these strategies is also dependent on the SLBs' accountability and communication skills.

Street‐level bureaucrats and policy entrepreneurship: When implementers challenge policy design

“…By investigating bottom‐up policy making, they suggest focusing on the individual street‐level bureaucrat as a policy agent. Taking a new direction, they study the unique strategies of policy entrepreneurs (Arnold, 2021); the interplay between professional affiliation and institutional, context driven street‐level policy entrepreneurship (Aviv et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2021); and analyze this phenomenon during a global crisis (Lotta et al, 2021). Thus, they move beyond the traditional view of street‐level bureaucrats as solely implementers of existing policy.…”

“…The third article by Zhang et al (2021) has two main research objectives. First, it investigates whether and how street‐level policy entrepreneurship strategies are sensitive to the institutions in which these bureaucrats work.…”

Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China

“…It is affected by the structure of the professional network and its professional status within the network (Frisch‐Aviram et al., 2021; Halliday et al., 2009; Keulemans & Groeneveld, 2020). Street‐level policy entrepreneurs are embedded in a more complex network of relationships, influenced by a combination of policy implementation pressures and local demands (Peake & Forsyth, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). SLBs are required to respond to community needs while providing services.…”

“…Second, citizens are increasingly involved in decision‐making, and SLBs who are in direct contact with the public are empowered to build coalitions, to initiate policy experiments, etc. (Cohen & Aviram, 2021; Frisch‐Aviram et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021) Finally, as long‐serving professionals, SLBs are better able to build stable networks of relationships. In short, the governance shift means SLBs are less influenced by the “rules” of government departments and more influenced by their “relationships” inside and outside of the organization, especially with their clients (Lotta & Marques, 2020) and the locality (Durose, 2009; Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003).…”

“…In the governance context, SLBs are no longer merely coping, struggling to meet local needs and to carry out government policy (Hupe & Hill, 2007). Empowered by policy pressures, local demands, and their structural status, they can become more active political actors (e.g., Kalkman & Groenewegen, 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). SLBs will use coping mechanisms not only to avoid frustration but also to gain satisfaction; they can be compelled to cope as well as enticed to cope (Nielsen, 2006).…”