How street‐level dilemmas and politics shape divergence: The accountability regimes framework

Hierarchical accountability often proves insufficient to control street-level implementation, where complex, informal relations prevail and tasks must be prioritized. However, scholars lack a theoretical model of how affect implementation behaviors that are inconsistent with policy. By extending the Accountability Regimes Framework (ARF), this paper explains multiple competing subjective accountabilities translate into policy divergence. The anti-terrorism “Prevent Duty” in United Kingdom requires university lecturers report any student they suspect may undergoing process radicalization. We ask: what perceived dilemmas does politically contested imply for lecturers, do divergence? An online survey British (N = 809), combined 35 qualitative follow-up interviews, reveals trigger ARF models bureaucrats become policymakers political system when rules clash their roles as professionals, citizen-agents, or “political animals.” 等级问责常常被证明不足以控制街道层面的政策实施，后者普遍存在复杂的、非正式的问责关系，并且任务必须进行优先排序。不过，就问责关系如何影响与政策不一致的实施行为而言，学术界还缺乏一个理论模型。通过扩展问责制度框架(ARF)，本文解释了多个相互竞争的主观街头问责如何转化为政策分歧。英国的反恐“预防义务”政策要求大学讲师报告任何其怀疑可能正在经历激进化的学生。我们的研究问题是:这种在政治上具有争议性的政策对讲师而言意味着什么样的街头问责与困境，并且这些感知问责与困境如何影响(政策)分歧?一项针对英国讲师(N 809)的网络调查(结合35次定性后续访谈)表明，问责困境引发了政策分歧。当规则与作为专业人士、公民代理人或“政治动物”的街头官僚发生冲突时，街头官僚如何成为政治系统中的非正式决策者——ARF对此进行了建模。. La rendición de cuentas jerárquica menudo resulta insuficiente para controlar la implementación nivel calle, donde prevalecen relaciones informales y complejas las tareas deben priorizarse. Sin embargo, los académicos carecen un modelo teórico cómo afectan comportamientos que son inconsistentes con política. Al extender el Marco Regímenes Rendición Cuentas este documento explica múltiples responsabilidades subjetivas competitivas calle se traducen en divergencias políticas. política antiterrorista del Reino Unido obliga profesores universitarios denunciar cualquier estudiante sospechen puede estar proceso radicalización. Preguntamos: ¿qué dilemas percibidos implica esta políticamente cuestionada profesores, divergencia? Una encuesta línea británicos combinada entrevistas cualitativas seguimiento, revela desencadenan El modela burócratas ventanilla convierten legisladores sistema político cuando reglas chocan sus como profesionales, ciudadanos-agentes o “animales políticos.” “Implementation represents key venue expression conflict.” Manna & Moffitt, 2021: 190. This article tackles crucial issue Street-level bureaucrats—such inspectors, police officers, teachers—are widely recognized actors who, translating regulations practice, use discretion diverge from formal (Eiró, 2022; Lipsky, 2010; Visser Kruyen, 2021). inherently face multitude need prioritize among them. makes them who shape policies actually look practice (Davidovitz et al., divergence is an umbrella term wide range bureaucrats’ behavior, both desirable undesirable, directives (Gofen Weaver, Under Review). For instance, nurse decide not charge poor families fee childhood vaccinations even if official government policy; welfare workers allocate benefits racially biased ways (Gofen, 2014; Thomann Rapp, 2018). While behavioral research has studied more less willing implement given (Tummers 2012), framework systematically act remains elusive (Saetren, 2005). As far homogeneous unified phenomenon 2014, 485), scholarly consensus “that no general theory close at hand” 93) would help us outcomes street level (Assouline Hill Hupe, Maynard-Moody Portillo, Moulton Sandfort, 2017). mechanisms relate account-giver account-holder factor affecting former's behavior (Aleksovska 2019; Bovens 2014). empirically, hierarchical oversight prevent diverging (Brodkin, 2008; Holland, 2016; Hupe Hill, 2007; Keulemans Groeneveld, 2020; Lieberherr Thomann, 2019). Instead, decades cumulative evidence suggests perceive own work responsibilities shapes act, driven by self-conceptions “state agents,” “citizen “professional-agents,” “knowledge-agents” (Cecchini Harrits, Musheno, Tummers 2012). Such perceptions determined only top–down expectations superiors but also horizontal different Schillemans, 2021; Bovens, Hwang Han, 2017; example, might care about helping Hippocratic oath than organizational repercussions disobeying originally developed (2007) subsequently refined van der Krogt (2013) al. (2018), captures these interacting, demands, defining public social relationships wherein actor feels obligation justify another significant person. If create conflicting pressures, then “dilemmas” Lipsky (2010) so famously described. thus far, was used describe marketized, unpolitical hybrid arrangement (Thomann In paper, we enhance provide concretely testable actual bureaucrats. some over others. prioritization influences interpret pressures doing jobs. Competing dilemmas, ultimately influence degree which adhere engage Moreover, extant approaches four main roles: implementers (“state agents”), professionals (“professional-agents” “knowledge-agents”), relation clients (“citizen market agents Adding emerging on politicized context operate Cohen, Eiró, Hinterleitner Wittwer, Peters 2022), our study accounts fact animals” give account other citizens, organizations networks, were socialized into. highly environments weak structures, political, ideological, ethical principles preferences inherent therefore likelihood bureaucrat (Hinterleitner Multiple simultaneous universal feature increasingly hybridized sector Our tests empirical implications examining science universities Prevent Duty. Although formally employed state, type teacher all typical characteristics (Lipsky, Sager Zacka, 2018): deliver education direct interaction students, bottom while enjoying very high levels discretion, have professionalism. 2015, (UK)'s Counterterrorism Security Act (CSA) introduced statutory train teaching staff recognizing signs radicalization establish procedures anyone being radicalized.1 Thus, presented additional legal requirement part original job profile. A sequential mixed-method approach combines 809) semi-structured interviews those reported experiences implementing Duty 35) allows gain simultaneously broad in-depth understanding first systematic test ARF's ability explain lead “bend, break, ignore rules” 476), include political-ideological relations, valuable contributions literature (Hill Matland, 1995). provides promising explanatory power. find “correct” stand odds role implies status system. Various properties make likely case observe Compliance almost impossible monitor enforce everyday student–lecturer interactions. University “private bureaucrats” 2018) power practice. uniquely sensitive, contested, ambiguous. Following logic “Sinatra inferences,” testing stone divergence: cannot it here, anywhere—at preliminary expense generalizability “traditional” settings (Levy, 2007). Next, summarizes AFR, presents proposed extension, argues can divergence, introduces universities. strategy study. Subsequently, present results paper. Finally, conclude distilling broader avenues future research. core It defined “a mechanism relating account-holder, should impact decisions account-giver” 2019: 1). Traditionally, expected faithfully comply democratically decided policies, personally disagree answerability through within specific institutional arrangements held principal (Bovens Yet, neither solely nor primarily accountable formal-hierarchical (Frink Klimoski, 2004; Katz Kahn, 1978). Rather, seek satisfice web diverse (perceived) called “forums” (Bovens, Brodkin, 2008: 321; Overman Tetlock, 2002). These particularly evident organization, answer holders such stakeholders customers Sager, Integrating concepts 1978; 2002), devised offer nuanced perspective recognizes forms level. implicitly its roots identity (Webeck Lee, posits adopt dynamic identities based consistent personal values beliefs feel supported referents. depend interactional contexts vary same organization. develop self-meaning differ assume interactions others, depending strong ties others networks much support receive 2022). From emerge relations. bears resemblance “institutional logics” (Thornton comparative advantage lies reducing contextual individual-level motivations. understands product weigh informal, well vertical horizontal, environment. formal, relationship would, duty officer management higher hierarchy Conversely, midwife her peers, exchange emotional support. Box 1 ARF, examples below. Crucially, concentrates perception accountability. “Accountability regimes” systems define sets norms appropriate behavior. so-called action prescriptions add up constrain guide (Hupe Krogt, 2013). “refer” intensity. That is, subjectively attribute importance demands daily (Overman lecturer see defending academic freedom delivering high-quality students major priority work, attributing contributing toward University's compete good value money. existence prescriptions—particularly strongly refer them—can 2018, 303; conflict (what call “rule pressure”). needs curriculum hampering quality education, experience rule-professional dilemma takes further theorizing consequences next section. conduct other. regimes Sets guidelines (roles). Actors ask each explanations justifications actions. Action Norms preferably behave; three levels: institutionalized (system level—such sector, society, profession), organization circumstances (organizational school, hospital, station), individual (level persons, peers citizens). resulting (subjective objective) pressure Reference intensity attention identify particular prescriptions/pressures—in words, relation, derive meaning it. regime actors, objective Situations values—when incongruent prescriptions. analyze between rule Adapted 2018. summarize illustrate Table 1. First, political-administrative accountability, whose source strictly following rules, regulations, written (rule pressure). Lecturers follow concrete cases Second, expertise, shared norms, standards conduct, (professional/vocational pressure) professional Among obligations, protecting exercising freedom. State agent Terrorism prevention Professional Lecturer Citizen Mentor Market employee Political animal Citizen, voter Rule Formal Implementing intended extremism Defending accordance highest Participatory/societal Client needs/expectations Ensuring equal treatment, opportunity mentoring Efficiency, profit, attracting Contributing money Political-ideological ideological Acting values, principles, convictions Participatory (or societal) instead, arises society clients, termed societal mentors pastoral ensure opportunities students. efficiency competition (incentive (Lieberherr marketized environment employees engaged supplier–customer parents. “knowledge-agents,” “market agents” motivated (Bell Davidovitz Stensöta, 2011). Recently, growing highlights citizens react (Peters 2022): facing populist democratic backsliding Hassan, Lotta Fernandez, politicians media discriminated against rhetoric contexts, clandestinely wishes (Lotta O'Leary, argue understood distinct form (Aristotle, 1998) “intuitive politicians” (Tetlock, 2002)—as members participate community citizens. Individual neutral players issues discrete preferences. regimes, external sources individual, organizational, This, turn, will way facilitates line “internal” component degrees work. ideology… [influences] information, especially bureaucracies vague missions” (Keiser, 2010, 249). considerations actions considers right, appropriate, coexist overlap, without consciously distinguished themselves. distinction ideal-typical heuristic hybridity been described modes (Sager 2018), analyzed yet. amend descriptive compelling tool Figure “the [accountability] forums presence single forum” 711). Strong reference likely; turn tend require requirements about. Certain factors likely. expect contradict policy, restricts civil liberties speech. highly, express fear having apply cause compromise (rule-political dilemma). Hypothesis 1a.Street-level attitudes (ideological distance) articulate rule-political dilemma. separating work-related duties principles. reinforce important 1b.Street-level dilemma, pressure. Hypotheses 2 3 theorize types related subsequent effect Hybrid involving variety exist one several generally increase tensions 2017): 2.Stronger respective certain pressure, diverges “take sides” Consistent extent 2016)—naturally, considering have, incentives, According theory, motivation approval audiences consider important, helps avoid negative consequences, build esteem, When prevail, becomes 2021)—making 3.The stronger numerous expressed bureaucrat, ambiguity, renders lecturers’ UK's counterterrorism seeks stop “people becoming terrorists supporting terrorism” (HM Government, 8) identifying most risk “through early intervention […] offering [them] support” 31). Since regularly discuss topics discover harbor extremist thought. Requiring considered effective preventing CSA new service, healthcare institutions, including compulsory training recognize “to people drawn (Counter-Terrorism Act, 2015). Nearly adopted setting out processes legally radicalization.2 Often, designated internal administrative figure