L’utente insoddisfatto. Strategie di coping e relazione burocratica: una comparazione allo street-level.

Author/s Daniela Leonardi, Rebecca Paraciani, Dario Raspanti
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2023/166
Language Italian Pages 20 P. 251-270 File size 258 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2023-166011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Within the bureaucratic relationship, the users of public services meet the street-level bureaucrats: those professionals who deal with the spe-cific needs of citizens, interpreting and adapting formal regulation tools. This interpretative and adaptive process often involves different types of conflict that can be generated with the interaction, including the policy-client conflict, which emerges when the rules of the service do not match user’s expectations. When the user is dissatisfied, street-level bureaucrats implement different strategies to make the public ser-vice possible. In particular, the article investigates the way in which the different relational asymmetries within the public services affect the street-level bureaucrats’ strategies in the management of the dissatis-fied user. A comparative approach was chosen by selecting three ser-vices that constitute three cases of bureaucratic relations with different relational asymmetries. Principal findings highlight that the distribution of agency resources between operator and user influences the ways in which the former faces any dissatisfaction with the latter. Furthermore, the results show that the same strategy takes on peculiar nuances within different bureaucratic relationships.

Keywords: street-level bureaucracy, bureaucratic relationship, policy-client conflict, comparative approach

  1. Aksnes S. Y. (2019). Engaging employers in vocational rehabilitation: Understanding the new significance of knowledge brokers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 50 (5): 73-84. DOI: 10.3233/JVR-180989
  2. Aschhoff N., Vogel R. (2018). Value conflicts in co-production: governing public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31: 775-793. DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-0222.
  3. Bartels K.P.R. (2013). Public Encounters: The History and Future of Face-to-face Contact between Public Professionals and Citizens. Public Administration, 91 (2): 469-483.
  4. Brown M. K. (1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  5. Bruhn A., Ekström M. (2017). Towards a multi-level approach on frontline interactions in the public sector: Institutional transformations and the dynamics of real-time interactions. Social Policy and Administration, 51 (1): 195-215.
  6. Cohen N., Benish A., Shamriz-Ilouz A. (2016). When the clients can choose: Dilemmas of Street-Level Workers in Choice-Based Social Services. Social Service Review, 90 (4): 620-646.
  7. Consoli T., Meo A., a cura di (2021). Homelessness in Italia: Biografie, territori, politiche. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  8. Davidovitz M., Cohen N. (2020). Playing defence: the impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of Street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review, 24 (2): 279-300. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
  9. De Graaf G., Huberts L., Smulders R. (2016). Coping with public value conflicts. Administration and Society, 48 (9): 1101-1127. DOI: 10.1177/0095399714532273
  10. Dubois V. (2010). The bureaucrat and the poor: Encounters in French welfare offices. London, New York: Routledge (trad. it.: Il burocrate e il povero. Amministrare la miseria. Milano: Mimesis).
  11. Hill M., Hupe P. (2019). Comparing public task performance. In: Hupe, P., a cura di, Research Handbook on Street-level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  12. Ingold J. (2018). Employer engagement in active labour market programmes: The role of boundary spanners. Public Administration, 96 (4): 1-14.
  13. Jilke S., Tummers L. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28 (2): 226-238.
  14. Kazepov Y., Barberis E. (2013). Social Assistance Governance in Europe. Towards a Multi-level Perspective. In: Marx, I., Nelson, K., a cura di, Minimum Income Protection in Flux. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. Lancione M., Stefanizzi A., Gaboardi M. (2018). Passive adaptation or active engagement? The challenges of Housing First internationally and in the Italian case. Housing Studies, 33 (11): 40-57. DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2017.1344200
  16. Larsen C. A., Vesan P. (2012). Why Public Employment Services Always Fail. Double-Sided Asymmetric Information and the Placement of Low-Skill Workers in Six European Countries. Public Administration, 90 (2), pp. 466-479.
  17. Leonardi D. (2019). Etichettare, valutare, scegliere. Spazi discrezionali in un disegno di intervento istituzionale. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 42(2), pp. 305-320.
  18. Lipsky M. (2010[1980]). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  19. Mandrone E., Landi R., Marocco M., Radicchia D. (2016). I canali di intermediazione e i servizi per il lavoro. Roma: ISFOL Research paper n. 31/2016.
  20. May P.J., Winter S.C. (2012). Regulatory Enforcement Styles. In: Parker, C., Nielsen V. L., a cura di, Explaining Regulatory Compliance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  21. Maynard-Moody S.W., Musheno M. (2022[2003]), Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Harbour: University of Michigan Press.
  22. Mik‐Meyer N., Silverman D. (2019). Agency and clientship in public encounters: co‐constructing ‘neediness’ and ‘worthiness’ in shelter placement meetings. The British Journal of Sociology, 70 (5): 1640-1660. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12633
  23. Møller M.Ø., Stone D. (2013). Disciplining disability under Danish active labour market policy. Social Policy and Administration, 47 (5): 586-604.
  24. Oorschot W.V. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy and Politics, 28 (1): 33-48.
  25. Orton M., Green A., Atfield G., Barnes S. (2019). Employer Participation in Active Labour Market Policy: from Reactive Gatekeepers to Proactive Strategic Partners. Journal of Social Policy, 48 (3): 511-528. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279418000600
  26. Paraciani R. (2020). Decidere quando è grave. Considerazioni sulla discrezionalità degli ispettori del lavoro in Italia e nei Paesi Bassi. Professionalità Studi, 3, 39-62.
  27. Paraciani R., Rizza R. (2020). Ispettori del lavoro e street-level bureaucracy. Gestire le irregolarità lavorative tra spinte isomorfe e spazi discrezionali. Polis, 35(3), 597-620.
  28. Raaphorst N., Groeneveld S. (2018). Double Standards in Frontline Decision Making: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration. Administration & Society, 50 (8): 1175-1201. DOI: 10.1177/0095399718760587
  29. Raaphorst N., Loyens K. (2020). From Poker Games to Kitchen Tables: How Social Dynamics Affect Frontline Decision Making. Administration and Society, 52 (1): 31-56. DOI: 10.1177/0095399718761651
  30. Raspanti D., Saruis T. (2022). Trapped into Reverse Asymmetry: Public Employment Services Dealing with Employers. Journal of Social Policy, 51 (1): 173-190. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279420000756
  31. Senghaas M., Freier C., Kupka P. (2019). Practices of activation in frontline interactions: Coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany. Social Policy and Administration, 53 (5): 613-626.
  32. Soss J., Fording R., Schram S.F. (2011). The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Suppl. 2): i203-i232.
  33. Thomann E., Hupe P., Sager F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation, Governance, 31 (2): 299-319.
  34. Thunman E., Ekström M., Bruhn A. (2020). Dealing With Questions of Responsiveness in a Low-Discretion Context: Offers of Assistance in Standardized Public Service Encounters. Administration & Society, 52 (9): 1333-1361. DOI: 10.1177/0095399720907807
  35. Tummers L. G., Bekkers V., Vink E., Musheno M. (2015). Coping During Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25 (4): 1099-1126.
  36. Tummers L.G., Vermeeren B., Steijn B., Bekkers V. (2012). Public Professionals and Policy Implementation, Public Management Review, 14 (8): 1041-1059. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2012.662443
  37. Tuurnas S., Stenvall J., Rannisto P. (2016). The impact of co-production on frontline accountability: the case of the conciliation service. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82 (1): 131-149. DOI: 10.1177/0020852314566010
  38. Vink E., Tummers L.G., Bekkers V.J.J.M., Musheno M. (2015). Decision-making at the frontline: exploring coping with moral conflicts during public service delivery. In: Lewis, J., Considine, M., a cura di, Making public policy decisions, London: Routledge.
  39. Zacka B. (2017). When the State Meets the Street. Public Service and Moral Agency. Cambridge: Belkamp Press.

Daniela Leonardi, Rebecca Paraciani, Dario Raspanti, L’utente insoddisfatto. Strategie di coping e relazione burocratica: una comparazione allo street-level. in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 166/2023, pp 251-270, DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-166011