Street-level Bureaucrats and Implementation of Non-cash Food Assistance Programs: Case Study of Indonesia
Abstract
Street-level Bureaucrats are bureaucrats who are at the forefront of implementing programs or policies. Their duties and functions are diverse, and based on their duties, they are expected to improve the welfare of community by implementing policies and assisting the public in services. They play an important role in policy implementation and have a strong influence on policy outcomes. This study aims to determine the value orientation of street-level bureaucrats and their attitudes toward beneficiaries in the implementation of the Non-cash Food Assistance Program. The research method uses a Mix Methods research design with a dominant scheme in a qualitative approach. The research focus areas are: (a) value orientation of street-level bureaucrats and (b) attitude of street-level bureaucrats toward beneficiaries. The total population of the study was 1916 and after calculations using a certain formula, a research sample of 95 individuals was obtained. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the value orientation of street-level bureaucrats stands out for social or cooperative orientation, while their attitude toward beneficiaries is positive so that in carrying out their duties they do not do much discretionary action. The research recommendation is that officers must always update beneficiary data and carry out external supervision in distributing aid. In addition to using mixed methods, it is also expected to conduct research using a quantitative approach to understand the effect of value orientation and attitudes on the effectiveness of program implementation.
Keywords: street-level bureaucrats, discretion, value orientation, attitude
References
[1] https://sirusa.bps.go.id/sirusa/index.php/variabel/8625
[2] Lipsky M. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1980.
[3] Denhardt JV, Denhardt RB. The New Public Service Revisited. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75(5):664–72.
[4] Cohen N, Hertz U. Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Social Value Orientation On and Off Duty. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(3):442–53.
[5] Nalbandian J. Politics and administration in local government. Int J Public Adm. 2006;29(12):1049–63.
[6] Baviskar S, Winter SC. Street-level bureaucrats as individual policymakers: the relationship between attitudes and coping behavior toward vulnerable children and youth. Int Public Manage J. 2017;20(2):1–38.
[7] Zhang L, Zhao J, Dong W. Ji Zhao.,Weiwei Dong.,2021. Street-level bureaucrats as policy entrepreneurs: action strategies for flexible community governance in China. Public Adm. 2021 Sep;99(3):469–83.
[8] Brodkin EZ. Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations under New Managerialism. Supplement 2. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2011;21 Supplement 2:i253–77.
[9] Gassner D, Gofen A. Street-level management: a clientele-agent perspective on implementation. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2018;28(4):551–68.
[10] Keulemans S, Van de Walle S. Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Attitude toward Clients: A Study of Work Group Influence in the Dutch and Belgian Tax Administration. Public Perform Manag Rev. 2020;43(2):334–62.
[11] Arnold G. Street-level policy entrepreneurship. Public Manage Rev. 2015;17(3):307– 27.
[12] Lavee E, Cohen N. How street-level bureaucrats become policy entrepreneurs: the case of urban renewal in Israel. Governance (Oxford). 2019;32(3):475–92.
[13] Cohen N, Gershgoren S. The Incentives of Street-Level Bureaucrats and Inequality in Tax Assessments. Adm Soc. 2016;48(3):267–89.
[14] Evans T. Organisational Rules and Discretion in Adult Social Work. Br J Soc Work. 2013;43(4):739–58.
[15] Oberfield Z. Becoming Bureaucrats. Socialization at the Front Lines of Government Service. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812209846.
[16] Raaphorst.N., S. Van de Walle., 2017, A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: How public officials interpret signals and cues. Social Policy and Administration. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12369..
[17] Cohen N, Hertz U. Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Social Value Orientation On and Off Duty. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(3):442–53.
[18] Keulemans S, Van de Walle S. Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Attitude toward Clients: A Study of Work Group Influence in the Dutch and Belgian Tax Administration. Public Perform Manag Rev. 2020;43(2):334–62.
[19] Creswell JW. Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. New Delhi, California, UK: Sage Publication; 1994.
[20] Yamane T. Elementary Sampling Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1967.
[21] Mueller DJ. Measuring Social Attitudes. New York, London: Teacher College Press; 1986.
[22] Umar H. Metode Riset Perilaku Konsumen Jasa. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia; 2003.
[23] Creswell JW. Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. New Delhi, California, UK: Sage Publication; 1994.
[24] Miles, Matthew B and A Michael Huberman.,1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed, Sage: London.
[25] McClintock CG. Social Motivations – A Set of Propositions. Behav Sci. 1972;17(5):438– 54.
[26] Maynard-Moody SW, Musheno MC. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11924.
[27] Gofen A. Mind the Gap: Dimensions and Influence of Street-Level Divergence. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2013;24(2):473–93.
[28] Cohen N, Benish A, Shamriz-Ilouz A. When the Clients Can Choose: Dilemmas of Street-Level Workers in Choice-Based Social Services. Soc Serv Rev. 2016;90(4):620–46.
[29] Jordan JJ, Hoffman M, Nowak MA, Rand DG. Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016 Jul;113(31):8658–63.
[30] Van Lange PA, Rusbult CE, Drigotas SM, Arriaga XB, Witcher BS, Cox CL. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Jun;72(6):1373–95.
[31] Balliet D, Parks C, Jeff J. Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2009;12(4):533–47.
[32] Au WT, Kwong JY. Measurement and Effects of Social Value Orientation in Social Dilemmas: A Review. In: Suleiman R, Budescu DV, Fischer I, Messick DM, editors. Contemporary Psychological Research on Social Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 71–98.
[33] Roux C, Goldsmith K, Bonezzi A. On the Psychology of Scarcity: When Reminders of Resource Scarcity Promote Selfish (and Generous) Behavior. J Consum Res. 2015;42(4):615–31.
[34] Stone CN, Feldbaum EG. Blame, complacency, and pessimism: attitudes and problem perceptions among selected street level administrators in two suburban counties. Adm Soc. 1976;8(1):79–106.
[35] Maynard-Moody SW, Musheno MC. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11924.
[36] Olson MA, Kendrick RV. Origins of attitudes. In: Crano WD, Prislin R, editors. Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York, NY; London, UK: Psychology Press; 2008. pp. 111– 30.
[37] Petty RE, Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48(1):609–47.
[38] Haddock G, Huskinson TL. Individual differences in attitude structure. In: Haddock G, Maio GR, editors. Contemporary Perspectives of the Psychology of Attitudes. New York (NY): Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 35–56.