IS OUTPUT PERFORMANCE ALL ABOUT THE RESOURCES? A FUZZY-SET QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRATS IN SWITZERLAND

This article refines Lipsky's assertion that lacking resources negatively affects output performance. It uses fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to analyse the nuanced interplay of contextual and individual determinants of the output performance of veterinary inspectors as street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Moving ‘beyond Lipsky’, the study builds on recent theoretical contributions and a systematic comparison across organizational contexts. Against a widespread assumption, output performance is not all about resources. The impact of perceived available resources hinges on caseloads, which prove to be more decisive. These contextual factors interact with individual attitudes emerging from diverse public accountabilities. The results contextualize the often-emphasized importance of worker–client interaction. In a setting where clients cannot escape the interaction, street-level bureaucrats are not primarily held accountable by them. Studies of output performance should thus consider gaps between what is being demanded of and offered to street-level bureaucrats, and the latter's multiple embeddedness.

[1]  B. Steijn,et al.  Public Professionals and Policy implementation , 2012 .

[2]  Peter Hupe,et al.  STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRACY AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY , 2007 .

[3]  Benoît Rihoux,et al.  Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis : An Extensive Review , 2011 .

[4]  O. Grusky,et al.  Institutional Logic and Street-Level Discretion: The Case of HIV Test Counseling , 2013 .

[5]  Lars Tummers,et al.  Policy Alienation of Public Professionals: The Construct and its Measurement , 2012 .

[6]  Steven Maynard-Moody,et al.  For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Performance Paradox , 2006 .

[7]  Søren C. Winter,et al.  Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration , 2003 .

[8]  D. Yates,et al.  Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services , 1981, Michigan Law Review.

[9]  Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen,et al.  Street-level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy , 2012 .

[10]  E. Brodkin.  Reflections on Street‐Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future , 2012 .

[11]  Peter J. May,et al.  Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation , 2009 .

[12]  E. Brodkin.  Inside the Welfare Contract: Discretion and Accountability in State Welfare Administration , 1997, Social Service Review.

[13]  Peter Hupe,et al.  A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy , 2014 .

[14]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: Contents , 2012 .

[15]  F. Sager,et al.  Street-level Bureaucrats and New Modes of Governance: How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss Ordinance on Veterinary Medicinal Products , 2014 .

[16]  E. Brodkin.  Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism , 2011 .

[17]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: Potential pitfalls and suggestions for solutions , 2012 .

[18]  Norma M. Riccucci,et al.  The Implementation of Welfare Reform Policy: The Role of Public Managers in Front‐Line Practices , 2004 .

[19]  B. Steijn,et al.  Explaining the Willingness of Public Professionals to Implement Public Policies: Content, Context and Personality Characteristics , 2012 .

[20]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets , 2010 .

[21]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis , 2012 .

[22]  Lael R. Keiser.  Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucrats' Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program , 2010 .