Cadde-Düzey Bürokrasi Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Year 2024, , 1106 - 1120, 31.08.2024

Veysel Başusta , Mustafa Lamba

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1391108

Abstract

Kamu politikalarının etkilerini belirlemede vatandaşa en yakın olacak şekilde faaliyet yürüten cadde-düzey bürokratların yani ön cephedeki memurların incelenmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Üst-düzey bürokratik ve siyasi elitlerin vatandaşla etkileşiminde çok kilit bir pozisyonu işgal eden cadde-düzey bürokratların, kamu hizmetinde çok önemli bir boşluğu dolduruyor olması, herkes tarafından kabul edilen şüphe götürmez bir gerçektir. Kamu hizmetinin en ön cephesinde çalışan bu memurlar, geçtiğimiz 40 yıl içinde her yönüyle mercek altına alınmıştır. Yerel, bölgesel ve ulusal düzeyde birçok nicel araştırmanın konusu olan cadde-düzey bürokrasi, aynı zamanda, kamu yönetimine ilişkin teorik tartışmalarda da kendine yer bulmuştur. Bu çalışmalarda ele alınan ilk konu, cadde-düzey bürokratların kullandığı takdir yetkisinin niteliği, etkileri ve belirleyicileridir. Takdir yetkisinin yanı sıra, cadde-düzey bürokratların kurum içindeki rolleri ve bürokratik elit ile hiyerarşik ilişkilerine ilişkin tartışmalar da literatürde önemli ölçüde yer kaplamaktadır. Üçüncü olarak ise cadde-düzey bürokratların kamu politikalarının uygulanması hususundaki kritik rolünün ele alındığı araştırma yazıları bulunmaktadır. Bunların yanı sıra dördüncü olarak, literatürün genişlemesine katkıda bulunan disiplinlerarası makaleler de bulunmaktadır. İşte bu çalışmada, bu dört ana başlık altında cadde-düzey bürokrasi literatürünün şematik bir incelemesi yapılmış ve literatürde en çok atıf alan çalışmalar kısaca analiz edilmiştir.

Keywords

Bürokrasi, Cadde-Düzey Bürokrasi, Takdir Yetkisi, Kamu Politikası

A Review on Street-Level Bureaucracy Studies

Abstract

It is very important to examine street-level bureaucrats who operate closest to the citizens in determining the effects of public policies. It is an unquestionable fact accepted by everyone that street-level bureaucrats, who occupy a very key position in the interaction of high-level bureaucratic and political elites with citizens, fill a very important gap in the public service. These civil servants, who work at the front lines of the public service, have been scrutinized in every aspect over the past 40 years. Street-level bureaucracy, which is the subject of many quantitative studies at local, regional and national levels, has also found its place in theoretical discussions on public administration. The first issue addressed in these studies is the nature, effects, and determinants of the discretion exercised by street-level bureaucrats. Secondly, discussions regarding the roles of street-level bureaucrats within the institution and their hierarchical relations with the bureaucratic elite also occupy a significant place in the literature. Thirdly, there are research articles that discuss the critical role of street-level bureaucrats in the implementation of public policies. In addition to these, fourthly, there are also interdisciplinary articles that contribute to the expansion of the literature. In this study, a schematic review of the street-level bureaucracy literature is made under these four main headings and the most cited studies in the literature are briefly analyzed.

Keywords

Bureaucracy, Street-Level Bureaucracy, Discretion, Public Policy

References

• Alden, S. (2015). Discretion on the frontline: The street level bureaucrat in English Statutory Homelessness Services. Social Policy and Society, 4(1), 63-77.
• Ali Alkhatib and Michael Bernstein. 2019. Street–Level Algorithms: A Theory At The Gaps Between Policy and Decisions. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19), April 2019, Glasgow, Scotland UK. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300760
• Arnold, G. (2020). Distinguishing the street-level policy entrepreneur. Public Administration, 99(3), 439-453.
• Balica, D. O., Henderson, A. ve Țiclau, T. C. (2018). Romanian street level bureaucracy: a descriptive foundation. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Özel Sayı(2018), 5-26.
• Bartels, K. P. (2018). Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1319-1337.
• Boer, N. D. (2021). The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats? Public Policy and Administration, 36(4), 452-475.
• Bosma, A. Q., Kunst, M. J., Dirkzwager, A. J. ve Nieuwbeerta, P. (2018). Selection processes in prison-based treatment referrals: A street-level bureaucracy perspective. Crime & Delinquency, 64(8), 1001-1032.
• Breek, P., Eshuis, J. ve Hermes, J. (2022). Street-level bureaucrats: tensions and challenges in online placemaking. Journal of Place Management and Development, 15(4), 357-373.
• Brodkin, E. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1-33.
• Brodkin, E. (2007). Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 1-17.
• Brodkin, E. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253-i277.
• Buffat, A. (2015). Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149-161.
• Buurman, M. ve Dur, R. (2012). Incentives and the sorting of altruistic agents into street-level bureaucracies. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1318-1345.
• Civinskas, R., Dvorak, J. ve Šumskas, G. (2021). Beyond the front-line: the coping strategies and discretıon of lithuanian street-level bureaucracy during covid-19. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 12(1), 3-28.
• Cuthill, F. ve Johnston, L. (2019). Home level bureaucracy: moving beyond the ‘street’ to uncover the ways that place shapes the ways that community public health nurses implement domestic abuse policy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 41(7), 1426-1443.
• Dudau, A. I., Kominis, G. ve Brunetto, Y. (2020). Red tape and psychological capital: A counterbalancing act for professionals in street-level bureaucracies. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(3), 1-25.
• Ellis, K. (2011). ‘Street-level bureaucracy’ revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy & Administration, 45(3), 221-244.
• Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368-386.
• Evans, T. (2016). Street-level bureaucracy, management and the corrupted world of service. European Journal of Social Work, 19(5), 602-615.
• Evans, T. ve Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895.
• Gale, N., Dowswell, G., Greenfield, S. ve Marshall, T. (2017). Street-level diplomacy? Communicative and adaptive work at the front line of implementing public health policies in primary care. Social Science & Medicine, 177(9), 9-18.
• Garrow, E. E. ve Grusky, O. (2012). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103-131.
• Glyniadaki, K. (2022). Street-level actors, migrants and gender: Dealing with divergent perspectives. Administration & Society, 54(3), 451-478.
• Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473-493.
• Hill, M. ve Hupe, P. (2015). Introduction: defining and understanding street-level bureaucracy. P. Hupe (Ed.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy içinde (s. 3-24). Bristol University Press.
• Hjörne, E., Juhila, K. ve Nijnatten, C. V. (2010). Negotiating dilemmas in the practices of street-level welfare work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 303-309.
• Hoyle, L. P. (2013). I mean, obviously you're using your discretion’: Nurses use of discretion in policy implementation. Social Policy and Society, 13(2), 189-202.
• Hupe, P. ve Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548-569.
• Hupe, P. ve Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279-299.
• Isett, K. R., Morrissey, J. P. ve Topping, S. (2006). Systems ideologies and street-level bureaucrats: Policy change and perceptions of quality in a behavioral health care system. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 217-227.
• Jewell, C. ve Glaser, B. (2006). Towards a general analytic framework: Organizational settings, policy goals, and street-level behavior. Administration & Society, 38(3), 335-364.
• Johannessen, L. E. (2019). Negotiated discretion: Redressing the neglect of negotiation in street-level bureaucracy. Symbolic Interaction, 42(4), 513-538.
• Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats' decision making: Determining eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247-257.
• Keulemans, S. ve Walle, S. V. (2020). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients: Towards a measurement instrument. Public Policy and Administration, 35(1), 84-113.
• Kjorstad, M. (2006). Between professional ethics and bureaucratic rationality: The challenging ethical position of social workers who are faced with implementing a workfare policy. European Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 381-398.
• Levy, J. J. (2021). Revanchism via pedestrianism: Street-level bureaucracy in the production of uneven policing landscapes. A Radical Journal of Geography, 53(3), 906-927.
• Lipsky, M. (1969). Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. University of Wisconsin.
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage Foundation.
• Loyens, K. ve Maesschalck, J. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society, 42(1), 66-100.
• May, P. J. ve Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453-476.
• Maynard-Moddy, S. ve Musheno, M. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(Özel Sayı), 16-23.
• Maynard-Moody, S. ve Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329-358.
• Moseley, A. ve Thomann, E. (2020). A behavioral model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation. Policy & Politics, 49(1), 1-19.
• Parys, L. V. ve Struyven, L. (2018). Interaction styles of street-level workers and motivation of clients: a new instrument to assess discretion-as-used in the case of activation of jobseekers. Public Management Review, 20(11), 1702–1721.
• Piven, F. F. ve Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor people's movements: Why they succed, how they fail. Vintage Books.
• Ponnert, L. ve Svensson, K. (2016). Standardisation: The end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19(3-4), 586-599.
• Prottas, J. M. (1978). The Power of the street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(3), 285-312.
• Raaphorst, N. (2018). How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485-502.
• Riccucci, N. M. (2005). Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89-111.
• Rice, D. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), 1038-1062.
• Stensöta, H. (2012). Political influence on street-level bureaucratic outcome: Testing the interaction between bureaucratic ideology and local community political orientation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 553-571.
• Suvarierol, S. (2015). Creating citizen-workers through civic integration. Journal of Social Policy, 44(4), 707-727.
• Thomann, E., Hupe, P. ve Sager, F. (2017). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299-319.
• Trappenburg, M., Kampen, T. ve Tonkens, E. (2022). Street-level bureaucrats in a catch-all bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 54(10), 2021-2047.
• Tummers, L. ve Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527-547.
• Visintin, E. P., Bonvin, J.-M., Varone, F., Butera, F. ve Lovey, M. (2020). Can street-level bureaucrats be nudged to increase effectiveness in welfare policy? Policy & Politics, 49(1), 121-139.
• Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, S. ve Pithouse, A. (2010). Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Švejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310-320.