IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i6p1251-1261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'We are bitter but we are satisfied': nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Walker, Liz
  • Gilson, Lucy

Abstract

This study investigates how a group of nurses based in busy urban primary care health clinics experienced the implementation of the free care (the removal of fees) and other South African national health policies introduced after 1996. The study aimed to capture the perceptions and perspectives of front-line providers (street-level bureaucrats) concerning the process of policy implementation. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods, the study paid particular attention to the personal and professional consequences of the free care policy; the factors which influence nurses' responses to policy changes such as free care; and what they perceive to be barriers to effective policy implementation. The research reveals firstly that nurses' views and values inform their implementation of health policy; secondly that nurses feel excluded from the process of policy change; and finally that social, financial and human resources are insufficiently incorporated into the policy implementation process. The study recommends that the practice of policy change be viewed through the lens of the 'street-level bureaucrat' and highlights three sets of related managerial actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Walker, Liz & Gilson, Lucy, 2004. "'We are bitter but we are satisfied': nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(6), pages 1251-1261, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:6:p:1251-1261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00708-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:6:p:1251-1261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.