An Exploratory Examination of the Relationship Between Trust and Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Willingness to Risk Their Lives for Others

• Author: Nissim Cohen
• DOI: 10.1177/02750740211055470
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Date: 01 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

An Exploratory Examination of the

Relationship Between Trust and

Street-Level Bureaucrats’Willingness

to Risk Their Lives for Others

Nissim Cohen

Abstract

This article presents the findings of an exploratory study examining the relationships between street-level bureaucrats’(SLBs)

trust in their peers, managers, and the institution they belong to, and their willingness to endanger their own lives for the

public. We build on previous administrative and behavioral theories to present a model of these relationships. Using a survey

of 211 police officers in Israel, our findings demonstrate the important role of trust in understanding the willingness of civil

servants to risk their lives for citizens. We also identify additional factors that may be related to their willingness to take this

risk and the types of clients for whom they are less or more willing to do so. We discuss the normative elements related to

these findings and suggest fruitful future directions for study.

Keywords

street-level bureaucrats, trust, risking one’s life, police

Introduction

Since Lipsky’s (1980) influential work, research has sought

to reveal the influences that shape street-level bureaucrats’

(SLBs) perceptions and practices. Lately, this literature has

begun examining two interesting aspects that we believe

should be linked. The first is SLBs’willingness to risk

their lives for others (Cohen & Golan-Nadir, 2020). The

second is the role of trust in their practices (Davidovitz &

Cohen, 2020, 2021a, 2021b).

Why do SLBs risk themselves for others? Helping citi-

zens has risks and costs for SLBs (Do et al., 2017;

Lipsky, 1980; Müller & Rau, 2016; Vives &

FeldmanHall, 2018), including the possibility of losing

their lives. For example, doctors and nurses who treat pan-

demic patients endanger their own health, teachers interven-

ing in a school fight can be hurt, and firefighters entering a

burning building may be seriously injured. The choice to do

so depends on the SLBs’valuation of others’well-being and

thedegreeofpersonalrisktheSLBsfind acceptable.

Although police officers and firefighters knowingly

choose a career that could endanger their lives, they have

considerable discretion regarding the level of risk they are

willing to take. Their willingness to engage in situations

that are potentially fatal to themselves is important in ordi-

nary times and vital in extraordinary times of crisis

(Brodkin, 2021) and risk (Henderson, 2014).

Trust is a crucial element both in everyday life and in

times of crisis. Hence, it is "The Usual Suspects" to be

linked to willingness to risk life for others in the

collective. The literature documents efforts to understand

various aspects of public trust in government and their

possible impact on society and effective governance

(Bouckaert, 2012; Cleary & Stokes, 2009; Giordano &

Lindström, 2016; Keele, 2007; Sønderskov & Dinesen,

2016; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2014). Although trust is

considered one of the most important elements in public

administration (Hardin, 2006), specifically in the context

of SLBs (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2020), researchers have

yet to examine the connection between trust and civil serv-

ants’willingness to risk their lives for others.

This study contributes to the implementation literature by

investigating the factors associated with SLBs’discretion in

the extreme context of risking their lives. We argue that

SLBs’life risking requires us to propose a new theoretical

Department of Public Policy and Administration, University of Haifa, Haifa,

Israel

Corresponding Author:

Department of Public Administration & Policy, School of Political Sciences,

The University of Haifa. 199 Aba Khoushy Ave, Mount Carmel, Haifa

3498838, Israel.

Email: nissimcohen@poli.haifa.ac.il

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2022, Vol. 52(3) 221–234

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740211055470

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp