Street Level Bureaucracies

Examining the context of Lipsky's arguments on the processes of street-level bureaucracies, it seems reasonable to argue that the assertions made by research are only applicable to the organizations identified in author's work. The nature of the work provided by street-level bureaucracies coupled with the type and impact of the response that these organizations can produce is unique to the process of administration. Therefore, this investigation seeks to provide cohesive, salient evidence that effectively demonstrates that the street-level bureaucracies identified by Lipsky are indeed novel to these institutions and no other in the scope of public or private discourse.

Considering first the response of the street-level bureaucracy, Lipsky notes that, "A second reason street-level bureaucrats tend to be the focus of pubic controversy is the immediacy of their interactions with citizens and their impact on people's lives. The policy delivered by street-level bureaucrats is most often immediate and personal". Applying this ideology to the process of private or business administration, it becomes clear that while the actions of the private organization may impact some of the public in a general way-i.e. the organization may choose to sell assets and increase stock prices-the effects of the decisions made and actions taken by the private organization are not as integral to the function, harmony and development of the individual and the community. Thus, in this respect, Lipsky's analysis only applies to the context of street-level bureaucracies.

Further assessing the differences that exist between street-level bureaucracies and private organizations, Lipsky makes the observation that the relationship that exists between the worker and the managers in the street-level institution is "intrinsically confliction". In most private organizations, managers and workers may have conflict, but their ultimate goal toward improving the context of the organization is to develop a cohesive, cooperative relationship so that the organization as a whole can benefit. Under the processes of the street-level bureaucracy the following is true:

• It is an adversarial relationship between these two levels of the organization that serves as the impetus to shape the function of the organization.
• Even if this function is dysfunctional, this does not matter, as the priorities of the street-level bureaucracy are markedly different than those of the private organization.