Street-level bureaucrats
When Michael Lipsky refers to street-level bureaucracy or a street-level bureaucrat, he is referring to an individual who is, essentially, the enforcer for a bureaucratic agency-- those individuals who are hired to enforce actions and laws put into place to govern people. Lipsky uses individuals like police and social workers as examples of street-level bureaucrats (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). These individuals, according to Lipsky, vary the levels to which they implement the laws and regulations assigned to them. For instance, a police officer may let one individual off with a warning for speeding, although technically that officer should have given a ticket to the offender. Essentially, Lipsky says, “policy implementation in the end comes down to the people who actually implement it” (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). While this can be an innocuous reality-- like the example of the police officer who may choose, at his or her discretion, to give or not give a ticket-- it can also reflect more pervasive social injustices.
Street-level bureaucrats are directly in line with Deborah Stone’s polis theory. Stone postulates that the community is the driving force behind society, not the market; there is a true “public interest,” which is greater than the sum of all individual interests (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). However, the public interest is made up of a series of decisions made by individuals-- and these decisions may be considered to be rational on an individual, one-on-one basis. This is a good way to consider the context of street-level bureaucrats. Each of these individuals are making their own rational decisions, and thus are making incremental changes to public policy as they implement their own discretionary choices (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). This is the purpose of the rational theory of decision making in public policy.
Picket-Fence Federalism
Picket fence federalism is a metaphor for the ways in which governmental groups and organizations interact with each other. Each picket-- the vertical stakes on the “picket fence”-- represents a governmental group or organization (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Each of these pickets is strong individually; if they were merely stakes, they would be strong enough to withstand great amounts of force. However, the problem arises with the horizontal slats on the fence. These horizontal slats represent inter-group governmental oversight, and these horizontal slats are considerably weaker than the vertical stakes. In short, while each governmental group may be exceptionally strong on its own, it cannot function as a fence without inter-group oversight, and that inter-group oversight is weak (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Much was made of this weakness in the years following the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States, in which it was discovered that the various intelligence groups in the United States were doing a very poor job communicating with each other and thus had potentially dropped the ball on predicting the attacks. On the local level, the interaction between the city council and the school board can be fraught with difficulty, especially insofar as budgetary issues are concerned (Shafritz, Russell and Borick).
Public choice theory is the theory that people use economic reasoning and economic tools to deal with policy decisions. In public choice theory, individuals are self-interested actors. According to this theory, the bulk of civil servants are employed and have their jobs protected by law; thus, they can act as irresponsibly as they wish with few repercussions (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Social work is an example of a governmental service best handled at the local level, since it deals extensively with families, and families require understanding and patience.
Organization Theory
Herbert Simon was one of the founding fathers of organizational theory, and thus made many significant advancements in the field. Simon suggests that operational administrative decision making should be efficient and rational, and it must also be practical to implement these decisions (Shafritz, Russell and Borick).
Simon suggests that there are a number of steps that must be addressed before a decision is made-- this is one of the first and most important suggestions he has made in regards to organizational theory. Every decision has consequences, according to Simon; each alternative, if directed towards a goal, must be considered in terms of the potential consequences of that decision. First, the decision-maker must list all these alternatives without prejudice; this is the first step to making a good, informed decision about future behavior (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Next, each alternative must be investigated and considered closely, to determine what potential consequences could arise from implementing each decision. Finally, each alternative must be considered in the context of accuracy, efficiency, and rationality of the alternatives and consequences (Shafritz, Russell and Borick).
The idea of satisficing goes hand in hand with Simon’s theory on organization. Satisficing is the act of combing through all feasible alternatives, weighing different outcomes and consequences until the decision maker meets what is known as an “acceptability threshold,” where the consequences of acting do not outweigh the benefits (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). In policymaking, this may entail something like raising taxes to pay for social welfare systems. The consequence-- higher taxes-- meets the acceptability threshold because of the benefit (improved social welfare systems). These types of decisions are made in the working world daily; I have often chosen to stay late at work to ensure a project gets finished before a deadline, because missing a deadline has many more consequences than staying late for one evening.
Strategic Management
Strategic management is the process by which a company or other organization formulates and then implements action plans to reach goals (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Strategic management allows an organization to specify its objectives and then develop a plan or policy that can be implemented to ensure success insofar as those objectives are concerned.
Strategic planning involves setting goals, first and foremost. Without a clear set of goals, there can be no plans implemented; each goal must be considered for its applicability and for its long-term feasibility. After goal-setting, individuals involved in the strategic planning process must then determine a set of action items that will allow for the movement towards these goals. Strategic planning is not a static process-- it is an ongoing process, with feedback loops built into the process. These loops allow the organization to continuously re-assess their situation to determine whether or not the goals are being met, and whether their action plan must be reconsidered (Shafritz, Russell and Borick).
Strategic planning also takes place at all levels of government, as these organizations function much in the same way as profit-driven organizations do. Each governmental organization has a goal and a long-term purpose; action plans must be put into place so that these organizations can reach their long and short term goals (Shafritz, Russell and Borick). Although the goals may be slightly different for organizations like governmental cabinets, the process for planning and strategically determining the future path of the organization is remarkably similar (Shafritz, Russell and Borick).
References
Shafritz, Jay M, E. W Russell, and Christopher P Borick. 2013. Introducing Public Administration. Boston: Pearson.
