This article presents a novel theoretical approach that aims to enhance the accountability of street-level bureaucrats. The authors conceptualize changes and reforms in and around the public sector as a smart mechanism that is composed of two key dimensions; a) smart principles (i.e., institutions and technological tools that support citizen participation), and b) smart principals (i.e., citizens who adopt those smart principles in monitoring and evaluating street-level agents’ behaviors). Then the authors suggest a theoretical framework that explains how applying the smart mechanism can limit deviant behaviors of street-level bureaucrats and contribute to enhancing street-level accountability.
AleksovskaM., SchillemansT., & GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2019). Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2), 1–18.
2.
ArnoldR. D., & CarnesN. (2012). Holding mayors accountable: New York's executives from Koch to Bloomberg. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 949–963.
3.
ArnsteinS. R. (2019). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association85(1), 24–34.
4.
AuelK. (2007). Democratic accountability and national parliaments: Redefining the impact of parliamentary scrutiny in EU affairs. European Law Journal, 13(4), 487–504.
5.
BerryC. R., & HowellW. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retrospective voting. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 844–858.
6.
BinghamL. B., NabatchiT., & O'LearyR. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review65(5), 547–558.
7.
BogasonP., & MussoJ. A. (2006). The democratic prospects of network governance. American Review of Public Administration36(1), 3–18.
8.
BovensM. (2006). Analysing and assessing public accountability: A Conceptual model. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), C-06-01. Retrieved from: https://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/lib/ep7.pdf.
9.
BovensM., SchillemansT., & GoodinR. E. (2014). Public accountability. In BovensM., GoodinR. E., & SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
BowornwathanaB., & PoocharoenO. O. (2010). Bureaucratic politics and administrative reform: Why politics matters. Public Organization Review10(4), 303–321.
11.
BrignallS., & ModellS. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the new public sector. Management Accounting Research.11(1), 281–306.
12.
CallahanE. S., & DworkinT. M. (2000). The state of state whistleblower protection. American Business Law Journal38(1): 99–175.
13.
CarrI., & LewisD. (2010). Combating corruption through employment law and whistleblower protection. Industrial Law Journal39(1), 52–81.
14.
ChadwickA., & MayC. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “E-government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions16 (2), 271–300.
15.
ConroyM. M., & Evans-CowleyJ. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24(3), 371–384.
16.
CooperT. L. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
CooperT. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
CooperT. L., BryerT. A., & MeekJ. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review66, 76–88.
19.
CrosbyN., KellyJ. M., & SchaeferP. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review46(2), 170–178.
20.
DestlerK. N. (2017). A matter of trust: Street level bureaucrats, organizational climate and performance management reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27(3), 517–534.
21.
FaveroN., MeierK. J., & O'TooleL. J.Jr (2016). Goals, trust, participation, and feedback: Linking internal management with performance outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26(2), 327–343.
22.
FinerH. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review.1(4), 335–40.
23.
FriedrichC. J. (1935). Responsible government service under the American Constitution, In FriedrichC. J., BeyerW. C., SperoS. D., MillerJ. F., and GrahamG. A. (eds.), Problems of the American public service. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24.
GregoryR. (2003). Accountability in modern government. Ch44. in PetersB. G., and PierreJ. (ed.) Handbook of Public Administration. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE.
25.
HanY., & HongS. (2019). The impact of accountability on organizational performance in the US federal government: The moderating role of autonomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(1), 3–23.
26.
HarmonM. M. (1974). Social equity and organizational man: Motivation and organizational democracy. Public Administration Review34(1), 11–18.
27.
HartD. K. (1974). Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Administration Review34(1), 3–11.
28.
HayesD., & LawlessJ. L. (2015). As local news goes, so goes citizen engagement: Media, knowledge, and participation in US House Elections. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 447–462.
29.
HillH. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats' resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 13(3), 265–82.
30.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.28(4), 357–83.
31.
HoodC. (1995). Emerging issues in public administrationPublic Administration.73 (1), 165–82.
32.
HupeP., & HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration. 85(2), 279–99.
33.
JunK. N., WangF., & WangD. (2014). E-government use and perceived government transparency and service capacity: Evidence from a Chinese local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(1), 125–151.
34.
KeiserL.R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats' decision making determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review70 (2), 247–257.
35.
KellyE. P., & TastleW. J. (2004). E-government and the judicial system: Online access to case information. Electronic Government1(2), 166–178.
36.
KellyM. (1994). Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 4(2), 119–40.
37.
KettlD. F. (2015). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.,) Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
38.
KimS., & HanC. (2015). Administrative reform in South Korea: New public management and the bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(4), 694–712.
39.
KingC. S., FelteyK. M., & SuselB. O. N. (2015). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review58(4), 317–326.
40.
LeighleyJ. E., & OserJ. (2018). Representation in an era of political and economic inequality: How and when citizen engagement matters. Perspectives on Politics16(2), 328–344.
41.
LettingaB., & MoulijnM. (2004). Frontline professionals in the age of institutional rearrangement: The case of needs assessment for public services. Paper presented at the Annual Work Conference 2004 of the Netherlands Institute for Government, Rotterdam.
42.
LindblomC. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.
43.
LindersD. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government information quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.
44.
LipskyM. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy: The critical role of street-level bureaucrats. In ShafritzJ., and HydeA. (ed.). The classics of public administration. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
45.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary expanded edition). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
LoyensK., & MaesschalckJ. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society. 42(1), 66–100.
47.
MartinP. S., & ClaibournM. P. (2013). Citizen participation and congressional responsiveness: New evidence that participation matters. Legislative Studies Quarterly38(1), 59–81.
48.
MasseyA., & PyperR. (2005). Public management and modernisation in Britain. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
Maynard-MoodyS., & MushenoM. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S16–S23.
50.
Maynard-MoodyS., MushenoM., & PalumboD. (1990). Street-wise social policy: Resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation. The Western Political Quarterly. 43(4), 833–40.
51.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83(2), 340–363.
52.
MooreS. T. (1978). The theory of street-level bureaucracy: A positive critique. Administration & Society.19(1), 74–94.
53.
MorseS. W. (2004). Smart communities: How citizens and local leaders can use strategic thinking to build a brighter future. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
54.
MoynihanD. P., FernandesS., KimS., LeRouxH. M., PiotrowskiS. J., WrightB. E., & YangK. (2011). Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(1), 141–55.
55.
NamT., & PardoT. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 282–291).
56.
NambisanS., & NambisanP. (2013). Engaging citizens in co-creation in public services: Lessons learned and best practices. [Collaborating Across Boundaries Series]. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
57.
OatesB. J. (2003). The potential contribution of ICTs to the political process. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1), 31–39.
58.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review16(1), 145–179.
59.
PersonsG. A. (1990). Defining the public interest: Citizen participation in metropolitan and state policy making. National Civic Review79(2), 118–131.
60.
PollittC. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link?Evaluation.12(1), 38–55.
61.
PollittC., & BouckaertG. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.,) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
ProttasJ. M. (1978). The power of the street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Review. 13(3), 285–312.
63.
RhodesR. A. (2016). Recovering the craft of public administration. Public Administration Review76(4), 638–647.
64.
RohrJ. A. (1989). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values (2nd ed.,) New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
65.
SalzmannV. S. (2000). Are public records really public?: The collision between the right to privacy and the release of public court records over the internet. Baylor Law Review52, 355–380.
66.
ScholzJ., TwomplyJ., & HeadrickB. (1991). Street-level political controls over federal bureaucracy. American Political Science Review. 85(3), 829–50.
67.
SchultzD., & HarutyunyanK. (2015). Combating corruption: The development of whistleblowing laws in the United States, Europe, and Armenia. International Comparative Jurisprudence1(2), 87–97.
68.
ScottW. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
69.
SolvangB. K. (2009). Political participation and democracy in the information age: Effects of ICT-based communication forms between the authorities and the citizens on traditional channels of participation and democracy. In 2009 Third International Conference on Digital Society (pp. 46–51). IEEE.
70.
SørensenE., & TorfingJ. (2016). Introduction: Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In SørensenE. and TorfingJ. (Eds.,) Theories of democratic network governance. (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Springer.
71.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?American Review of Public Administration36(1), 41–57.
72.
TalibA. A. (2003). The offspring of new public management in English Universities: ‘Accountability’, ‘performance measurement’, ‘goal-setting’ and the prodigal child–the RAE. Public Management Review5(4), 573–583.
73.
ThompsonD. F. (2005). Restoring responsibility: Ethics in government, business and healthcare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 50–70.
74.
ThorntonP. H., & OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology105(3), 801–843.
75.
TorfingJ., PetersB. G., PierreJ., & SørensenE. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76.
TorresL., PinaV., & AcereteB. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government's relationship with citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 19(2), 277–302.
77.
TummersL., & BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.
78.
VerbaS., SchlozmanK. L., BradyH., & NieN. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say?American Political Science Review87(2), 303–318.
79.
YeoJ. (2016). Recent administrative and managerial practices and public service motivation: Evidence from Seoul city government, South Korea. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 216–225.
80.
ZackaB. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
