IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v36y2018i7p1319-1337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation

Author

Listed:
  • Koen PR Bartels

Abstract

Joint service delivery is a well-established aspect of urban governance but does not necessarily improve interagency collaboration or reduce socio-spatial deprivation. What happens in interactions between street level workers has a large influence on collaborative processes and outcomes but is remarkably underexplored. This article develops an understanding of the nature and impact of the relational practices enacted in street level collaboration. I argue that community-centred working can foster effective and authentic collaborative processes and, as a result, generate better societal outcomes. Based on a participatory evaluation conducted in Amsterdam, I critically appraise how working in and with communities moved collaborative dynamics in street level work away from habitual routines and power relations that sustained exclusion and inequality of local disadvantaged youngsters towards better internal relationships and less socio-spatial deprivation.

Suggested Citation

  • Koen PR Bartels, 2018. "Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1319-1337, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:7:p:1319-1337
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654418754387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654418754387
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654418754387?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Mole, 2002. "Street-Level Technocracy in UK Small Business Support: Business Links, Personal Business Advisers, and the Small Business Service," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    2. Christopher Pollitt, 2003. "Joined‐up Government: a Survey," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 1(1), pages 34-49, January.
    3. Peter Matthews, 2014. "Being Strategic in Partnership – Interpreting Local Knowledge of Modern Local Government," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 451-472, May.
    4. Peter Hupe & Aurélien Buffat, 2014. "A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 548-569, May.
    5. Clare Rigg & Noreen O'Mahony, 2013. "Frustrations in Collaborative Working," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 83-108, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahrum Chang, 2022. "A formal model of street-level bureaucracy," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(1), pages 6-27, February.
    2. Peters B., 2009. "The Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 7-24, July.
    3. Berrick, Jill Duerr & Dickens, Jonathan & Pösö, Tarja & Skivenes, Marit, 2018. "Care order templates as institutional scripts in child protection: A cross-system analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 40-47.
    4. Jozef Bátora, 2013. "The ‘Mitrailleuse Effect’: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 598-613, July.
    5. David Pickernell & Christine Atkinson & Christopher Miller, 2015. "Guest Editorial," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-8, February.
    6. Tjerk Budding & Bram Faber & Raymond (R.H.J.M.) Gradus, 2017. "Assessing Electronic Service Delivery in Municipalities," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-087/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Shenghao Guo & Bo Wen & Natalie Wai‐Man Wong, 2022. "Handling in the frontline: A case study of “whistle gathering” in Beijing," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(2), pages 159-164, May.
    8. Tom Christensen & Anne Fimreite & Per Lægreid, 2014. "Joined-Up Government for Welfare Administration Reform in Norway," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 439-456, December.
    9. Changkun Cai & Qiyao Shen & Na Tang, 2022. "Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 55-71, February.
    10. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2017. "Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 745-767, December.
    11. Lucyna Rajca, 2014. "Local Government Reforms under New Labour," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0201504, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    12. Pascaris, Alexis S., 2021. "Examining existing policy to inform a comprehensive legal framework for agrivoltaics in the U.S," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Sydelko, Pamela & Espinosa, Angela & Midgley, Gerald, 2024. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: A viable system model board game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 746-764.
    14. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    15. José García-Quevedo & Francisco Mas-Verdú, 2008. "Does only size matter in the use of knowledge intensive services?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 137-146, August.
    16. Suzanne Rutz & Dinah Mathew & Paul Robben & Antoinette de Bont, 2017. "Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 81-94, March.
    17. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    18. Kevin F Mole & Mark Hart & Stephen Roper & David S Saal, 2011. "Broader or Deeper? Exploring the Most Effective Intervention Profile for Public Small Business Support," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(1), pages 87-105, January.
    19. Ainurul Rosli & Federica Rossi, 2014. "Explaining the gap between policy aspirations and implementation: The case of university knowledge transfer policy in the United Kingdom," Working Papers 20, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Dec 2014.
    20. Hyunkuk Lee, 2021. "Does the Medium Matter? Linking Citizens’ Use of Communication Platform for Information about Urban Policies to Decision to Trust in Local Government," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.

    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:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:7:p:1319-1337. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.