Shared professional logics amongst managers and bureaucrats in Brazilian social security: a street-level mixed-methods study

Abstract

PurposeThis research addresses the professional logics of street-level managers (SLMs) and bureaucrats (SLBs) working in the Brazilian National Social Security Agency (INSS) through their perceptions of distributive justice and discretion. Since SLMs have the authority to influence SLBs' actions, we investigate whether these two groups hold similar viewpoints.Design/methodology/approachWe integrate the administrative data and survey responses (n = 678) with earlier thematic content analysis (n = 350) in three stages: mean-testing, regression analyses and complementary qualitative analysis, integrated through a mixed-methods matrix.FindingsWhilst no significant differences emerge in distributive justice ideas between groups, SLMs demand wider benefit-granting discretion, praising professionalism whilst adopting managerial posture and jargon.Research limitations/implicationsThe study adds to the theoretical discussions concerning SLM’s influence on SLB’s decision-making, suggesting that other factors outweigh it. The finding concerning the managers’ demand for wider discretion asks for further in-depth approaches.Practical implicationsFindings supply valuable insights for policymakers and managers steering administrative reforms, by questioning whether some roles SLMs play are limited to symbolic levels. Further, SLBs’ heterogenous formations might be more relevant to policy divergence than managerial influence and perhaps an underutilised source of innovation.Originality/valueBy approaching street-level management professional logics within a Global South welfare state through a mixed-methods approach, this study offers a holistic understanding of complex dynamics, providing novel insights for public sector management.

Purpose This research addresses the professional logics of street-level managers (SLMs) and bureaucrats (SLBs) working in the Brazilian National Social Security Agency (INSS) through their perceptions of distributive justice and discretion. Since SLMs have the authority to influence SLBs' actions, we investigate whether these two groups hold similar viewpoints. Design/methodology/approach We integrate the administrative data and survey responses (n = 678) with earlier thematic content analysis (n = 350) in three stages: mean-testing, regression analyses and complementary qualitative analysis, integrated through a mixed-methods matrix. Findings Whilst no significant differences emerge in distributive justice ideas between groups, SLMs demand wider benefit-granting discretion, praising professionalism whilst adopting managerial posture and jargon. Research limitations/implications The study adds to the theoretical discussions concerning SLM’s influence on SLB’s decision-making, suggesting that other factors outweigh it. The finding concerning the managers’ demand for wider discretion asks for further in-depth approaches. Practical implications Findings supply valuable insights for policymakers and managers steering administrative reforms, by questioning whether some roles SLMs play are limited to symbolic levels. Further, SLBs’ heterogenous formations might be more relevant to policy divergence than managerial influence and perhaps an underutilised source of innovation. Originality/value By approaching street-level management professional logics within a Global South welfare state through a mixed-methods approach, this study offers a holistic understanding of complex dynamics, providing novel insights for public sector management.