English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Street-level bureaucrats, the people who produce and deliver public services through direct encounters with citizens, are vital democratic actors in (at least) two respects. Firstly, they are set to implement the policies that democratically elected bodies prescribe. As it is impossible to prescribe in detail how to handle each and every encounter with clients, patients, students or whatever capacity it is in which the frontline organizations approach the public, the professionals who work in these organizations are given discretionary powers to decide exactly how each case should be handled. In Bo Rothstein’s words: ‘It is the sum of their actions which constitutes the public program. As to whether these actions reflect the objectives laid down by the democratically constituted organs – this must be regarded as an open questions’ (quoted by Molander, 2016, p. 16). Secondly and following this, they not only implement policies from above; they also face (often quite literally) citizens at the street-level. These are citizens with rights and entitlements, and it is the character and quality of these encounters which to a large extent determine the degree to which these rights and entitlements are being fulfilled. The quality of these experiences may again influence how people perceive the welfare state and their general political trust – in other words, their faith in the workings of democracy (Rothstein & Kumlin, 2005). In this chapter I will discuss these issues in light of the implementation of active social policies in street-level bureaucracies in Norway, drawing on data from empirical fieldwork in two local ‘NAV-offices’, local branches of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). Underlying nearly all welfare policy reforms in Norway for the past few decades is the idea of arbeidslinja, in English literally the ‘the work-line’. This has been defined as the principle that all welfare arrangements should be designed to encourage and facilitate labour market participation. In fact, we could consider the workline policy as a social institution that defines, governs and constrains action in the welfare state (Pierson, 2006). It is underpinned by normative justifications (work ethic, sustainability concerns, justice), by legal/organizational structures such as income security schemes (economic incentives, conditions, entry criteria) and by the work procedures in welfare bureaucracies (assessment of income claims, activation programmes). Despite broad political and popular support for the work-line there is less satisfaction with respect to the welfare state’s ability to put these principles into practice and produce the desired outcomes. One of the targets of criticism has been

14 No Factory for Dreams: Street-Level Bureaucrats between Activation Targets and User Orientation