Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service

12. The Broader Context of Bureaucratic Relations

CHAPTER 12 The Broader Context of Bureaucratic Relations In considering the potential for change in street-level bureaucracies it would be a mistake to restrict analysis to the coping dilemmas and adaptations of service workers, or the patterris of practice that develop among them. The resolution of contradictory tendencies in street-level bureaucracies cannot be understood without examining the role ofthese public agencies in the society and the ways in which the society impinges on the character ofbureaucratic relations. As V. O. Key Jr. has observed: "... one of the great functions of the bureaucratic organizations is as a conservator of the values of a culture. In the purposes, procedures, ceremonies, outlook, and habits ofthe bureaucracy are formalized the traditional cultural values." 1 This observation actively translates into reciprocity between the larger society and the structure of bureaucratic institutions. For street-level bureaucracy it means that these agencies are embedded in a larger system that creates and fortifies working conditions. In turn, street-level bureaucracies help reproduce prevailing relations between individuals and government organizations.2 Societies differ in their bureaucratic relations, as they differ in many areas. Even such apparently similar societies as those of the .United States and Great Britain exhibit sharp differences in bureaucratic interactions. In the case of police-citizen relations, for example, compared to their British counterparts American police tend to exercise control more informally, and American citizens tend to have less respect for the law, and to expect less considerate treatment from police.3 An important consideration in bureaucratic relations of a technologically 180 The Broader Context of Bureaucratic Relations advanced society is the extent and persistence of different subcultures and classes, particularly as expressed in clients' preparation and readiness for the impersonalism, hierarchy, and institutionalization of bureaucracy.4 In this connection bureaucrat-client relations in the United States may be said to reinforce and be structured by the American system ofpersistent and cumulative inequalities experienced by subordinate groups, particularly as this system consigns people to poverty and low expectations of mobility, monopolizes the service fun'ction, and grudgingly provides for public services. In stating this one must go beyond observing that the character of client treatment at the hands of street-level bureaucrats reflects and reinforces social class and racial divisions. While some may be tempted to view the character of U. S. social services as an expression of racism and of attitudes toward the individual in mass sodety, we cannot conscientiously stop there. This view does not explain the development ofsuch an elaborate service and control apparatus. Nor does it account for the opportunities clients have to redress grievances, find support within the service network, and resist dehumanized services. Nor does it account for or comprehend the wide range of forms and structures affecting clients in street-level bureaucracies throughout the country. Moreover, asserting that street-level bureaucracies reinforce social cleavages does not begin to account for the content ofbureaucratic behavior. Coping behaviors and adaptive attitudes may be endemic in organizational life. But this says nothing about the nature of the coping behaviors, or the orientation of adaptive attitudes. Street-level bureaucrats do not fully invent responses to work stresses but instead at least partially reflect the culture in which their agencies are embedded. In other words, responses to work stresses arise out ofthe work situation, but their content or direction are colored by prevailing cultural assumptions. In what ways do street-level bureaucracies reflect and perpetuate the values of the larger society? There are at least two respects in which the structure ofrelationships between workers and clients appears to be derived from the particular character of American society. First, street-level bureaucracies are affected by the prevailing orientations toward the poor in the United States. These orientations include the deep conviction that poor people at some level are responsible for the conditions in which they find themselves, and that receiving benefits labeled "for the poor" is shameful. These convictions are epitomized in the observation that public programs for poor people are almost always treated in the pres~ as costs to society, not benefits. These attitudes toward social services for the poor amount to a general THE FUTURE stigmatization of poor people. Stigma leads to a general reluctance to join the deviant group in the society on the one hand, and on the other hand provides subtle justification for patterns ofpractice that result in inadequate service provision. Prevailing attitudes toward the poor...