Universal Rules and Discretionary Situations: How Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Calculate Suffering

Authors

  • Nikita Mishakov European University at St. Petersburg Автор

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-59-48-72

Keywords:

street-level bureaucracy, discretion, universalization, bureaucratic optic, quantification

Abstract

Needs assessment (oсenka nuzhdaemosti) is a legal procedure in the Russian welfare system to determine whether citizens qualify for social benefits and, if so, to what extent. The article examines one of the Russian state agencies conducting this procedure. Public officials of the agency examined are typical “street-level bureaucrats” according to Michael Lipsky’s definition. They interact with citizens face to face and determine in what form certain services will be provided by the state and whether they will be provided at all. The creation of the agency has meant a redistribution of power in the social sphere in the region, a fragmentation of the process of prescribing and delivering social care and, at least formally, a stricter separation between the decision-making process and the work carried out according to it. The article analyses how, in the face of this fragmentation, as well as the introduction of new tools for automating decision-making, the space of discretion — the ability at a local level to influence and, in some cases, determine the way work is carried out — is preserved. The research was carried out using qualitative methods, predominantly through interviews. in addition, documents were analyzed and observation was conducted. The author demonstrates how the emerging “gaps”
in the social sphere are overcome and the professional and ethical categories of the bureaucrats determine the implementation of the needs assessment process, in particular the evaluation procedures.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-23

Issue

Section

Anthropology of Bureaucracy

How to Cite

Universal Rules and Discretionary Situations: How Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Calculate Suffering. (2024). Antropologicheskij Forum Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 59, 48-72. https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-59-48-72