Discussion about this post

User's avatar
unclejeems's avatar

Either we speak different languages, or I just wasn't clear enough.

First, I have no idea what you mean by "co-opted." I can only assume you mean "applied."

Second, no, the term "bureaucrat" is only an insult to the anti-government crowd. To put it briefly, a bureaucrat is someone who works within an hierarchical organization, which marks out clear lines of authority for it employees; and whose behavior is directed by rules and regulations. By that definition, nearly all of us are bureaucrats, whether we work for private or for public organizations. By that definition, police officers are certainly bureaucrats.

Third, given that definition, the meaning of the term "street-level bureaucrat" becomes fairly plain. Cops are street-level. Postal delivery people are street-level. And so forth.

Finally, because rules can't cover every possible situation, bureaucrats nearly always have some discretion in applying them. That's what I mean by "making policy."

Now if I understand your last comment, you're saying that bureaucrats should have "flexibility." And I'm saying that they do have flexibility, because they have discretion in the application of rules and regulations. I hope that's a little more clear.

Expand full comment
Last Hussar's avatar

My apologies - I did consider before posting, but it wasn't clear to me if you were using bureaucrat in the correct way (you were), instead of the way it's normally thrown at me. (Best response a Tax Collector has is in reply to "You can't talk to me that way, I pay your wages!" - "That's the point, sir, you don't.")

I didn't realise 'co-opt' was not American English

http://www.oxforddictionari...

Meaning 2 - to use for a purpose other than the original. (PS please don't call it British English - its just 'English' or, if you must, 'Queen's English' ;) ! )

Discretion has to be allowed, because, contrary to what the Right seems to believe, you can't write a rule book that covers everything. One of the most upsetting things I had to professionally was enforce Head Office's ruling on a Tax Credit repayment. They were legally right. However they could have written off the debt, legally, using EXACTLY the same clause in the law (which is what my office tried to get them to do, multiple times.)

It was only a debt because the woman tried to comply with the rules, but filled in the wrong (very similar) form; the one for new claims rather than renewal. mostly the same info, but form letter 'A' rather than form 'B'. Meanwhile people were abusing a loophole to claim money that they shouldn't have had. The loophole was then made 10 times bigger by Head Office. I've been a civil servant 24 years, and those 2 were the only time I didn't feel on the side of the good guys.

Expand full comment
154 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?