The Pros And Cons Of Local Bureaucracy

929 Words4 Pages
Bottom-up critiques view local bureaucrats as the main actors in policy delivery and conceive of implementation as negotiation processes within networks of implementers (Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, Ch7, p90). In addition, bottom-up theorists claim that if main actors, local bureaucratic, are not allowed preference in the implementation stage with respect to local condition state, thus the policy will be likely to face its failure (Matland, 1995, 148). The classical bottom-up researchers are: The American researchers Lipsky (1971, 1980) and Elmore (1980) besides Swedish scholar Hjern (1982), also in cooperation with other authors such Porter and Hull. Lipsky (1971, 1980) analyzed the behavior of public service workers (e.g., teachers, social workers, police officers, doctors), which he called “street-level bureaucrats.”. Correspondingly, goals, strategies, objectives, and activities must be allocated with special recognition to the beneficiaries that policy directly impacts. Therefore, street-level bureaucrat based evaluation would be the most appropriated practice (Matland, 1995, 149). In late 70s and early 80s, bottom-up theories appeared as a evaluative response to the top-down school. Diverse studies showed that political sequel did not always adequately relate to initial policy objectives and that the assumed causal link was thus questionable. Discretion by agents is the fundamental hypothesis of the bottom-upper’s approach (Elder, Lecture, 2011). Discretion may
Open Document