Advertisement

Power Dynamics and Power Asymmetries in the Interaction Between Street-Level Inspectors and Inspectees

  • Nissim CohenEmail author
  • Sagi Gershgoren
Chapter

Abstract

How do power dynamics and power asymmetries in the interaction between street-level inspectors and inspectees influence the value of equality in society? To investigate this question, we analyze the interactions between self-employed individuals and tax officials. We point out the problems that arise when the street-level bureaucrats’ incentives clash with the interests of the public. Such structural conditions may encourage them to intimidate ordinary citizens during tax audits and use uncertainty and asymmetric information for their own benefit. We show that given the fact that most taxpayers dislike risk, the uncertainty regarding the outcome of the assessment process increases the tax officials’ power. Once the balance of power moves to their side, the outcomes suit the inspectors’ interests. We demonstrate that such practices lead to social injustice and an increase in the gaps between income groups. We then offer suggestions at the individual and organizational level for ameliorating these problems.

Keywords

Street-level bureaucracy Tax assessment Power dynamics Information asymmetry Set of incentives 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. American Economic Review: American Economic Association, 53(5), 941–973.Google Scholar
  3. Behn, R. D. (1999). The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1, 131–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253–i277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, K., & Nyland, C. (2011). Elton Mayo and the deification of human relations. Organization Studies, 32, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, N. (2018). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, N., Benish, A., & Shamriz-Ilouz, A. (2016). When the clients can choose: Dilemmas of street-level workers in choice-based social Services. Social Service Review, 90(4), 620–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, N., & Gershgoren, S. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration and Society, 48(3), 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, K. (2007). Direct payments and social work practice: The significance of ‘street-level bureaucracy’ in determining eligibility. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fineman, S. (1998). Street-level bureaucrats and the social construction of environmental control. Organization Studies, 19, 953–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 95, 165–230.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplow, L. (1996). How tax complexity and enforcement affect the equity and efficiency of the income tax. National Tax Journal, 49, 135–150.Google Scholar
  15. Lederman, L. (1999). Which cases go to trial?: An empirical study of predictors of failure to settle. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 49, 315–358.Google Scholar
  16. Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard-Moody, S., & Portillo, S. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In R. F. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 255–277). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McCaffery, E. J. (1990). The holy grail of tax simplification. Wisconsin Law Review, 5, 1267–1322.Google Scholar
  20. Mead, M. L. (2004). Government matters: Welfare reform in Wisconsin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nielsen, V. L. (2006). Are street-level bureaucrats compelled or enticed to cope? Public Administration, 84, 861–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Paul, D. L. (1997). The sources of tax complexity: How much simplicity can fundamental tax reform achieve? North Carolina Law Review, 76, 151–222.Google Scholar
  24. Prendergast, C. (2007). The motivation and bias of bureaucrats. American Economic Review, 97, 180–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raaphorst, N. (2018). How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Radin, B. A. (2002). The accountable juggler. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review, 74, 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration and PolicyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Division of Management and EconomicsOpen UniversityRa’ananaIsrael

Personalised recommendations