Conflicting governance traditions and street-level bureaucrat’s practices: policy dilemmas and blame games in Indonesia’s CCT programme

Waty, Mega Hendra (2024). Conflicting governance traditions and street-level bureaucrat’s practices: policy dilemmas and blame games in Indonesia’s CCT programme. University of Birmingham. Ph.D.

Preview

Waty2024PhD.pdf
Text - Accepted Version
Available under License All rights reserved.
Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

Street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) are recognised as pivotal actors in policy implementation, particularly within the context of social welfare programmes. While SLBs play a crucial role in the success of policy implementation, they are also acknowledged for facing complex working situations and encountering dilemmas. Especially with the evolution and shifting of governance arrangements and reforms, SLBs operate in a day-to-day practice within a context where different governance paradigms and their logics clash, making the work of SLBs more challenging. This shift in governance structures is not confined to Western contexts; it also extends to non-Western settings where countries often uncritically introduce Western governance ideas into their bureaucracy. In Global South contexts, SLBs may experience an even more intricate working environment, where they have to negotiate cultural expectations ingrained in society with demands from diverse governance paradigms rooted in
Western ideas. Such challenging situations create the possibility for SLBs to be blamed by different actors when they fail to meet diverse expectations. It is also argued that the public administration theory espouses a false universalism that often fails to elucidate the significance of context, the specificities of which in a Global South context are limitedly understood.
This study focuses on analysing street-level dilemmas in the face of conflicting governance paradigms, and of street-level discretion and relationality in response to these dilemmas in Indonesia’s context. The topic of this study will be investigated through a case study of street-level practices in Indonesia’s Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Programme and the data was collected through unstructured interview with 45 participants, shadowing 5 participants, and 54 documents analysis. This study identifies four governance traditions; bureaucratic, performance-target, collaborative and Indonesia’s cultural traditions and finds that the conflicting governance traditions shape street-level practices by creating dilemmas for SLBs. Six distinct dilemmas emerged between the four traditions. In response to these dilemmas, the study identifies three original narratives of front-line work: 'stamp and sign,' 'changing mindsets,' and 'asset mapping.' This study also finds that clashing governance traditions not only give rise to dilemmas but also lead to blame games during CCT implementation. Therefore, in the face of conflicting governance traditions where blame games emerge, SLBs strategically use their discretion and relationality to mitigate the risk of blame. Importantly, the study uncovers implications related to how SLBs employ discretion and relationality when confronting dilemmas within the context of conflicting governance traditions during policy implementation. These implications extend to aspects concerning recipients, the
policy implementation process, and the ultimate policy outcomes.
This study contributes to the existing literature on street-level bureaucracy in three significant ways. Firstly, it addresses a crucial gap by providing insights into the practices of SLBs within contexts where different governance paradigms clash. Secondly, it presents a broader and distinct perspective by exploring street-level bureaucracy concepts and practices in a Global South context. Lastly, it establishes a connection between the street-level bureaucracy theory and the blame games theory, thereby reframing our understanding of analysing SLBs' discretionary practices and relational dynamics.

Type of Work:

Thesis (Doctorates > Ph.D.)

Award Type:

Doctorates > Ph.D.

Supervisor(s):