Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública

Vol. 14 Núm. 27 (2025): enero-junio
Artículos

Burócratas de calle y los factores limitantes en la implementación de políticas públicas: una revisión sistemática

PDF
  • Angela Suarez Diaz,
  • Obed Vargas Salas,
  • Ricardo Carpio Tapia,
  • Maribel Rojas Valdivia
Angela Suarez Diaz Universidad Católica de Santa María image/svg+xml

Biografía
Obed Vargas Salas Universidad Católica de Santa María image/svg+xml

Biografía
Ricardo Carpio Tapia Universidad Católica de Santa María image/svg+xml

Biografía
Maribel Rojas Valdivia Universidad Católica de Santa María image/svg+xml

Biografía

Publicado 2025-07-17

Palabras clave

  • burócratas de calle,
  • discrecionalidad,
  • recursos limitados,
  • implementación de políticas,
  • equidad

Derechos de autor 2025 Angela Suarez Diaz, Obed Vargas Salas, Ricardo Carpio Tapia, Maribel Rojas Valdivia

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Cómo citar

Burócratas de calle y los factores limitantes en la implementación de políticas públicas: una revisión sistemática. (2025). Revista Mexicana De Análisis Político Y Administración Pública, 14(27), 63-101. https://doi.org/10.15174/remap.v14i27.458

Resumen

El presente estudio aborda las limitaciones que enfrentan los burócratas de calle/burócratas de nivel de calle (por sus siglas en inglés SLBs) en la implementación de políticas públicas, con el propósito de comprender cómo estos afectan la equidad y eficacia en la prestación de servicios por parte del Estado. Se revisaron fuentes clave como Lipsky (1980), Tummers y Bekkers (2014), Maynard-Moody y Musheno (2003), y estudios de actualidad de Ndlovu y Nzuma (2024). La selección de literatura incluyó estudios empíricos y teóricos que analizan la discrecionalidad, los recursos limitados y las condiciones laborales de los SLBs. La discusión se centra en la paradoja entre la necesidad de discrecionalidad y la marginalidad estatal que afectan la consistencia en la implementación de políticas. La conclusión es que la falta de recursos y las jerarquías rígidas, propias de cualquier Estado, limitan la efectividad operativa y refuerzan desigualdades en la aplicación de políticas.

PDF

Referencias

  1. Ajayi, O., & Kwesiga, F. (2003). “Implications of local policies and institutions on the adoption of improved fallows in eastern Zambia”. Agroforestry Systems,
  2. (4), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000005233.32309.e4
  3. Agger, A., & Poulsen, B. (2017). “Street-level bureaucrats coping with conflicts in area-based initiatives in Copenhagen and Malmo”. Scandinavian Political
  4. Studies, 40(4), 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12093
  5. Alcadipani, R., Cabral, S., Fernandes, A., & Lotta, G. (2020). “Street-level bureaucrats under COVID-19: Police officers’ responses in constrained
  6. settings”. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1771906
  7. Alden, S. (2015). “Discretion on the frontline: The street-level bureaucrat in English statutory homelessness services”. Social Policy and Society, 14(1), 63-77.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746414000402
  9. Almeida Guimarães, T. C., da Silva Bernado, E., & Moreira Borde, A. (2022). La discrecionalidad del profesor se configura como un factor clave en la reconfiguración
  10. de las políticas públicas escolares, evidenciando su interacción con otros actores del proceso. Educação e Realidade.
  11. Alló, M., & Loureiro, M. L. (2016). “Evaluating the fulfillment of the principles of collective action in practice: A case study from Galicia (NW Spain)”. Forest
  12. Policy and Economics, 73, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.002
  13. Amare, D., & Darr, D. (2020). “Agroforestry adoption as a systems concept: A review”. Forest Policy and Economics, 120, Article 102299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102299
  14. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  16. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://n9.cl/ojrt6
  17. Bethune, S. (2003). “Review of legislation and policies pertinent to combating desertification - A case study from Namibia”. Review of European Community &
  18. International Environmental Law, 12(2), 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00358
  19. Bettles, J., Battisti, D. S., Cook-Patton, S. C., Kroeger, T., Spector, J. T., Wolff, N. H., & Masuda, Y. J. (2021). “Agroforestry and non-state actors: A review”.
  20. Forest Policy and Economics, 130, Article 102538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102538
  21. Biffi Isla, V. (2022). “Community-level bureaucrats conserving the Peruvian Amazon”. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), 44-54. https://doi.
  22. org/10.1002/pad.1958
  23. Borrelli, L. M., & Lindberg, A. (2018). “The creativity of coping: Alternative tales of moral dilemmas among migration control officers”. International
  24. Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 4(3), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMBS.2018.093876
  25. Brodkin, E. Z. (2007). “Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 1-17.
  26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj019
  27. Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). “Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future”. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940-949. https://doi.org/10.1111/
  28. j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x
  29. Brodkin, E. Z. (2020). “Discretion in the welfare state”. En T. Evans & P. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom (pp. 63-78). Palgrave
  30. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3_5
  31. Buffat, A. (2016). “When and why discretion is weak or strong: The case of taxing officers in a Public Unemployment Fund”. En P. Hupe & M. Hill (Eds.),
  32. Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy (p. 79). Policy Press.
  33. Buse, K., Mays, N., & Walt, G. (2012). Making health policy. McGraw Hill/Open University Press. https://n9.cl/46mm6
  34. Caniëls, M. C. J., & Veld, M. (2016). “Employee ambidexterity, high-performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we
  35. need?”. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1216881
  36. Chirwa, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., Syampungani, S., Kalaba, F. K., & Ajayi, O. C. (2008). “Opportunity for conserving and utilizing agrobiodiversity
  37. through agroforestry in Southern Africa”. Biodiversity, 9(1-2), 45-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2008.9712881
  38. Civinskas, R., Dvorak, J., & Šumskas, G. (2021). “Beyond the front-line: The coping strategies and discretion of Lithuanian street-level bureaucracy during
  39. COVID-19”. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 12(1), 3-28.
  40. Cobb, R., & Elder, C. (1972). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Allyn and Bacon. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958664
  41. Czupich, M. (2020). “Inclusion in the implementation of public policy: The Polish experience. Ekonomia i Prawo”. Economics and Law, 19(4), 639-656. https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2020.042
  42. Davidovitz, M., & Cohen, N. (2021). “Which clients inspire or reduce the trust of street-level bureaucrats?”. Administration & Society, 54(8), 1516-1541. https://
  43. doi.org/10.1177/00953997211061686
  44. De Bortoli Cassiani, S. H., et al. (2024). “The role of nurses in implementation of public policy on adolescent health in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru”. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22(1), Article 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961- 024-01134-6
  45. Dubnick, M. (1984). “Implementation and public policy”. Policy Studies Review, 3(2), 349.
  46. Dunlop, C. A., Ongaro, E., & Baker, K. (2020). “Researching COVID-19: A research agenda for public policy and administration scholars”. Public Policy and Administration, 35(4), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720939631
  47. Dvorak, J. (2020). “Lithuanian COVID-19 lessons for public governance”. En P. Joyce, F. Maron, & P. S. Reddy (Eds.), Good public governance in a global pandemic (pp.
  48. -338). The International Institute of Administrative Sciences. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3749816
  49. Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press. https://n9.cl/1nhnn
  50. Ellis, K. (2014). “Professional discretion and adult social work: Exploring its nature and scope on the front line of personalisation”. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(8), 2272-2289. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct076
  51. Evans, T. (2020). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315602325
  52. Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). “Street-level bureaucracy, social work and then (exaggerated) death of discretion”. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871- 895.
  53. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch106
  54. Fontana, I. (2019). “The implementation of Italian asylum policy and the recognition of protection in times of crisis: Between external and internal constraints”. Contemporary Italian Politics, 11(4), 429-445. https://doi.org/10.10 80/23248823.2019.1680027
  55. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press.
  56. Gilson, L. (2012). Health policy and systems research: A methodology reader. World Health Organization. https://n9.cl/9lsco2
  57. Giudici, D. (2020). “The list. On discretion and refusal in the Italian asylum system”. European Journal of Social Work, 23(3), 437-448. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13691457.2019.1696754
  58. Graham, S., & Thrift, N. (2007). “Out of order”. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407075954
  59. Gruening, G. (2001). “Origin and theoretical basis of new public management”. International Public Management Journal, 4, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1096-7494(01)00041-1
  60. Hale, T., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., & Webster, S. (2020). “Variation in government responses to COVID-19”. Blavatnik School of Government Working Paper, 31, 24-25.
  61. Handler, W. C. (1990). “Succession in family firms: A mutual role adjustment between entrepreneur and next-generation family members”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1), 37-52. https://doi. org/10.1177/104225879001500105
  62. Henderson, A. C. (2012). “The critical role of street-level bureaucrats in disaster and crisis response”. En R. W. Schwester (Ed.), Handbook of critical incident analysis. Routledge.
  63. Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400023205
  64. Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2002). Implementing public policy. Sage Publications.
  65. Hupe, P. (2007). “The frontline supervisor: On the study of leadership at the street-level”. En Workshop 5: Leadership and the New Public Management.
  66. University of Delaware. https://n9.cl/r9fqjg
  67. Hupe, P. (2013). “Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research”. Der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 425-440. https://n9.cl/7lu43
  68. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). “A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy”. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.854401
  69. Kalfagianni, A., & Young, O. R. (2022). “The politics of multilateral environmental agreements: Lessons from 20 years of INEA”. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 22(2), 245-262. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10784-022-09567-6
  70. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7758/9781610447713
  71. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610447713
  72. Lipsky, M. (2010). “Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service”. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, 76, 1-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960475
  73. Nicholas, P., & Tendai, M. N. (2024). “The implementation of agroforestry in Namibia: A street-level bureaucracy perspective”. Forest Policy and Economics,
  74. https://n9.cl/ahzur
  75. Lotta, G., Pires, R., Hill, M., & Møller, M. O. (2022). “Recontextualizing street-level bureaucracy in the developing world”. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1968
  76. Maier, C., & Winkel, G. (2017). “Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest management: A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest”. Forest Policy and Economics, 82, 14-29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.015
  77. Masood, A., & Nisar, M. A. (2021). “Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa031
  78. May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2009). “Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jopart/mum030
  79. Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press. https://doi. org/10.3998/mpub.11924
  80. Møller, M. et al. (2021). Introducing accompanied driving in Denmark: Safety- related differences between youth licensing with immediate or delayed access to solo driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 162, Article 106394. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106394
  81. Pivoras, S., Civinskas, R., Buckienė, E., & Kaselis, M. (2016). “The role of administrative identities in assuring accountability of street-level bureaucracies to citizens: Case of two Lithuanian agencies”. Paper presented at EGPA Conference. https://n9.cl/1x0n1m
  82. Pivoras, S., & Kaselis, M. (2019). “The impact of client status on street-level bureaucrats’ identity and informal accountability”. Public Integrity, 21(2), 182-
  83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1433424
  84. Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2016). “Standardisation —the end of professional discretion?”. European Journal of Social Work, 19(3-4), 586-599. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13691457.2015.1074551
  85. Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. UNAM, CEIICH, CRIM, FCPS, FE, IIEc, IIS, PUMA; IASC, CIDE, Colsan, CONABIO, CCMSS, FCE, UAM. https://n9.cl/vp1k7
  86. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. https://
  87. archive.org/details/implementationho00pres
  88. Raaphorst, N., & Groeneveld, S. (2018). “Double standards in frontline decision making: A theoretical and empirical exploration”. Administration & Society, 50(8), 1175-1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718760587
  89. Raś, K. (2020). “The Baltic States and COVID-19”. PISM Bulletin, 96, 1-2. https:// n9.cl/9tzv1p
  90. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). “The new governance: Governing without government”. Political Studies, 44, 652-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996. tb01747.x
  91. Rivera González, O. D., & Rodríguez Van Gort, M. F. (2023). “Construcción de planta de fertilizantes en sitio Ramsar: Implementación de política pública para el cuidado y preservación, Topolobampo, Sinaloa, México”. Geopauta, 7, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.22481/rg.v7.e2023.e10960
  92. Sarkisyan, N. (2022). “Producing Kartinka: Street-level bureaucracy and implementation of Russia’s tolerance policy in St. Petersburg”. Nationalities Papers, 51(2), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2021.77
  93. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press. https://n9.cl/b4fko
  94. Scourfield, P. (2015). “Even further beyond street-level bureaucracy: The dispersal of discretion exercised in decisions made in older people’s care home reviews”. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(3), 914-931. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bjsw/bct175+
  95. Suvarierol, S. (2008). “Beyond the myth of nationality: Analysing networks within the European Commission”. West European Politics, 31(4), 701-724. https://n9.cl/1v0ihs
  96. Thomann, E. (2015). “Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland”. Public Administration, 93(3), 692-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12130
  97. Tolentino Barbosa, S. C. (2022). “Comparative analysis applied to research on the implementation of public policy: The multi-value qualitative comparative analysis (MvQCA) method”. Revista Alcance, 29(1), 35-52. https://doi. org/10.14210/alcance.v29n1(jan/abr).
  98. Trappenburg, M., Kampen, T., & Tonkens, E. (2020). “Social workers in a modernising welfare state: Professionals or street-level bureaucrats?”. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(6), 1669-1687. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/ bcz120
  99. Tummers, L. G., Bekkers, V. J., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). “Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099-1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
  100. Tummers, L. G., & Bekkers, V. J. (2014). “Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion”. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527-547.
  101. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978
  102. Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., & Valotti, G. (2020). “Sense or sensibility? Different approaches to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic”. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 746-752. https://doi. org/10.1177/0275074020942427
  103. Walt, G., & Gilson, L. (1994). “Reforming the health sector in developing countries: The central role of policy analysis”. Health Policy and Planning, 9(4), 353-370. https://n9.cl/n835kh
  104. Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean?: Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Georgetown University Press. https://n9.cl/j0vys

Artículos similares

También puede Iniciar una búsqueda de similitud avanzada para este artículo.