Does Public Accreditation Promote More State-Friendly Decisions at the Street Level?

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241265355
• Author: Sagi Gershgoren,Nissim Cohen
• Date: 01 September 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241265355

Administration & Society

2024, Vol. 56(8) 1001 –1030

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997241265355

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Does Public

Accreditation Promote

More State-Friendly

Decisions at the Street

Level?

Sagi Gershgoren1 and Nissim Cohen1

Abstract

When public administrators resolve disputes between citizens and other

state officials, are they truly impartial? The question is imperative for

evaluating resolutions made by street-level bureaucrats whom citizens

often perceive as the face of public administration. This study examines the

relationship between public accreditation and the tendency of street-level

bureaucrats’ resolutions to accept the state’s arguments or the citizens’

claims. Using quantitative analysis of administrative lower-court rulings in

Israeli tax disputes, the findings link public accreditation to state favoritism

in street-level resolutions. Such an outcome, if not accounted for, may

jeopardize procedural fairness and erode public trust in government.

Keywords

street-level bureaucrats, discretion, public accreditation, formal certification,

lay officials

1University of Haifa, Israel

Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article

Corresponding Author:

Sagi Gershgoren, Department of Public Administration and Policy in the School of Political

Sciences, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, Haifa 3498838, Israel.

Email: sagitax@gmail.com

1265355AAS0010.1177/00953997241265355Administration & SocietyGershgoren and Cohen

research-article2024

1002 Administration & Society 56(8)

Introduction

Street-level bureaucrats are major implementers of public policy (Portillo &

Rudes, 2014; Thomann et al., 2018). Serving at the front-lines of public

administration, they use their broad discretion when allocating public bene-

fits and imposing public sanctions (Lipsky, 2010; Tummers & Bekkers,

2014). Despite the diversity in their jobs—teachers, police officers, low court

judges, social workers, and more—they are seen as belonging to the same

group of public servants that interact with citizens directly and on a regular

basis, exercise considerable discretion while doing so (Hupe & Buffat, 2014),

and develop similar coping mechanisms to balance their lack of information

and resources (Gofen, 2014). The decisions they make concern important

issues that affect the outcomes of governance (Brodkin, 2012; Edlins &

Larrison, 2018) and reflect the administration to citizens (Davidovitz &

Cohen, 2022a).

At the core of the social contract between citizens and the government is

the belief that the former will be treated fairly and with dignity (Rawls, 1971).

In return for their participation in collective decision-making and paying of

taxes, citizens expect fair treatment from authorities (Beeri et al., 2022; Van

Ryzin, 2011). Some scholars view the concept of bureaucratic neutrality as a

myth (Portillo et al., 2020); yet procedural values, such as fairness, equity,

and respect continue to constitute a significant driver of trust in government

(Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2020; Mcloughlin, 2015; Moynihan et al., 2015).

Therefore, citizens who believe they received unbiased treatment from public

administrators and generalize their personal experiences (Kumlin &

Rothstein, 2005) are more likely to develop trust in the administration and

follow administrative decisions and rules (Kang, 2022).

People expect fair treatment from street-level bureaucrats (Raaphorst &

Van de Walle, 2020) whom they perceive as the symbolic face of the govern-

ment (Lipsky, 2010). It is therefore essential for street-level bureaucrats’

decisions to be considered unbiased, especially when resolving disputes

between the state and its citizens. Still, the literature is equivocal regarding

street-level bureaucrats’ dual role as state employees serving citizen-clients.

They sometimes are viewed as citizen agents who consider themselves advo-

cates for the public (Glyniadaki, 2022; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000;

Tummers, 2017), while at other times they are described as state agents,

adopting the state’s narratives (Prendergast, 2007).1

This study focuses on situations in which street-level bureaucrats are

called upon to resolve disagreements between citizens and other state offi-

cials. In such administrative disputes, the likelihood of their resolutions to

support public claims or state arguments can expose their pro-citizen or pro-

state tendencies (Cohen & Gershgoren, 2016; Raaphorst, 2018).