آسیب شناسی نظام اختیار برو کرات‌های سطح خیابان در توسعه اجتماعی بخش عمومی
محورهای موضوعی :
مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی ایران
سارا شیخ بکلو
1
,
کرم اله دانش فرد
2
,
عباس طلوعی اشلقی
3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - استاد گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)
3 - استاد گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
تاریخ دریافت : 1397/02/08
تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/02/21
تاریخ انتشار : 1397/08/01
کلید واژه:
بروکراتهای سطح خیابان,
آسیب‌شناسی,
توسعه اجتماعی,
اختیار,
چکیده مقاله :
تئوری بروکراسی سطح خیابان اکنون در مرحله بلوغ نسبی است و در حال حاضر تمرکز بروکراتهای سطح خیابان به‌عنوان خط مش گذاران نهایی به اهمیت اجرایی آن بسیار نزدیک هست. بعلاوه، مطالعه‌ای هم‌راستا با حقوق اجتماعی و اجراشدن قانون عمومی در سازمان‌های دولتی نشان داد بین قانون در کتاب و قانون در عمل شکاف اجتناب‌پذیری وجود دارد. بااین‌حال، موفقیت در مسیر پیشرفت به از دست رفتن ارزش بالقوه اهمیت خود قانون توسط ما بستگی دارد .هدف از این تحقیق آسیب‌شناسی نظام اختیار بروکراتهای سطح خیابان در بخش کادر درمان بیمارستان‌های تأمین اجتماعی کشور هست. تحقیق حاضر در حوزه علوم انسانی بخش مدیریت قرار می‌گیرد . این تحقیق ازلحاظ نوع هدف جزء پژوهش‌های کاربردی و ازلحاظ نوع روش تحقیق، تحقیق توصیفی- تحلیلی است. در این مطالعه جامعه موردبررسی را دو گروه مستقل خبرگان و مدیران اجرایی ارشد حوزه موردمطالعه تشکیل می‌دهند. روش گردآوری داده‌ها پرسشنامه بود که پایایی آن از طریق آلفای کرونباخ و روایی ان از طریق روایی صوری تائید شد.یافته‌ها تحقیق نشان داد بین وضع مطلوب و وضع موجود فاصله زیادی وجود دارد و براساس این یافته ها، پیشنهاداتی در جهت رفع آسیب ها در ابعاد فردی، گروهی، ساختاری و محیطی ارائه گردید.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Street-level bureaucratic theory is now at a fairly mature stage. The focus on street-level bureaucrats as ultimate policymakers is now as familiar as it is important. Likewise, the parallel socio-legal study of the implementation of public law in public organizations has demonstrated the inevitable gap between law-in-the-books and law-in-action. Yet, the success of these advances comes at the potential cost of us losing sight of the importance of law itself. The purpose of this study was to determine the pathology of street level bureaucrats in the medical care departments of social security organization hospitals in the country. The field of study is set within management branch of humanities. Purpose wise the research approach is applied research, and method wise it is considered as descriptive-analytic. Methodology was descriptive through describing the variables, and analytic through statistical analysis of these variables. In this study, the surveyed population was consisted of elites and senior experts in the field of study. This group consisted of faculty members from various universities in the field of public administration. Data Collection method done by means of questionnaire. Reliability of questionnaire was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha method and validity was confirmed by face validity. This study’s findings indicated significant difference between the favorable situation and the current situation.
منابع و مأخذ:
Amirahmadi, Rahmat alleh. Mehrdad Navabakhsh.2017." The Impact of Cultural Capital on Urban Development with Emphasis on Citizen Participation in the Renovation of Worn Texture” Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies, Vol8, No. 3: 35-49.
Azkia, Mostafa (2007) Sociology of Development, Tehran: Nashre Keyhan.
Bastami, eisa. . Seyfollah Seyfollahi. 2017." Sociological analysis and explanation of the persistence of perjury and lack of attention to social responsibility in Iran from 1979 to 1394” Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies, Vol. 9, No.2:69-88.
Brown, Michael. 1981. Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ellis, Kathryn.2011." ‘Street-level Bureaucracy’ Revisited: The Changing Face of Frontline Discretion in Adult Social Care in England". Social Policy & Administration. Vol. 45, No. 3: 221–244.
Evans, Tony.2011." Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy" British Journal of Social Work. 41:368–386.
Finlay, Susanna, Jane Sandall, 2009, ‘‘someone’s rooting for you’’: Continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare. Social Science & Medicine 69 (2009) 1228–1235.
HUNTER, CAROLINE, JOANNE BRETHERTON, SIMON HALLIDAY, and SARAH JOHNSEN, Legal Compliance in Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Study of UK Housing Officers, 2016, LAW & POLICY, Vol. 38, No 1:81-95
Jewell, Christopher, and Bonnie Glaser. 2006. “Towards a General Analytic Framework: Organizational Settings, Policy Goals, and Street-Level Behaviour,” Administration and Society 38: 335–64.
Kelly Marisa. 1994. "Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion”. J-PART. 4, 2: 119- 140.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loyens, Kim, and Jeroen Maesschalck, 2010, Toward a Theoretical Framework for Ethical Decision Making of Street-Level Bureaucracy: Existing Models Reconsidered, Administration & Society, vol 42, no1:66– 100.
Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Shannon Portillo. 2010. “Street-Level Bureaucratic Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, edited by Robert Durant. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Meyers, M. K., & Vorsanger, S. (2003). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 245-255). London, UK: Sage
Nielson, Vibeke L. 2006. “Are Street-Level Bureaucrats Compelled or Enticed to Cope?” Public Administration 84: 861–89.
Piore, Michael J, 2011, Beyond Markets: Sociology, street-level bureaucracy, and the management of the public sector, Regulation & Governance (2011) 5, 145–164.
Piore, Michael J., 2009, Sociology, Street-Level Bureaucracy, and the Management of the Public Sector, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Prottas, Jeffrey. 1979. People-Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies. Lexington: Lexington Press.
Riccucci, Norma. 2005. How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Scott Patrick G. 1997. "Assessing Determinants of Bureaucratic Discretion: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making" .J-PART. 7, 1: 35-57.
_||_
Amirahmadi, Rahmat alleh. Mehrdad Navabakhsh.2017." The Impact of Cultural Capital on Urban Development with Emphasis on Citizen Participation in the Renovation of Worn Texture” Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies, Vol8, No. 3: 35-49.
Azkia, Mostafa (2007) Sociology of Development, Tehran: Nashre Keyhan.
Bastami, eisa. . Seyfollah Seyfollahi. 2017." Sociological analysis and explanation of the persistence of perjury and lack of attention to social responsibility in Iran from 1979 to 1394” Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies, Vol. 9, No.2:69-88.
Brown, Michael. 1981. Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ellis, Kathryn.2011." ‘Street-level Bureaucracy’ Revisited: The Changing Face of Frontline Discretion in Adult Social Care in England". Social Policy & Administration. Vol. 45, No. 3: 221–244.
Evans, Tony.2011." Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy" British Journal of Social Work. 41:368–386.
Finlay, Susanna, Jane Sandall, 2009, ‘‘someone’s rooting for you’’: Continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare. Social Science & Medicine 69 (2009) 1228–1235.
HUNTER, CAROLINE, JOANNE BRETHERTON, SIMON HALLIDAY, and SARAH JOHNSEN, Legal Compliance in Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Study of UK Housing Officers, 2016, LAW & POLICY, Vol. 38, No 1:81-95
Jewell, Christopher, and Bonnie Glaser. 2006. “Towards a General Analytic Framework: Organizational Settings, Policy Goals, and Street-Level Behaviour,” Administration and Society 38: 335–64.
Kelly Marisa. 1994. "Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion”. J-PART. 4, 2: 119- 140.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loyens, Kim, and Jeroen Maesschalck, 2010, Toward a Theoretical Framework for Ethical Decision Making of Street-Level Bureaucracy: Existing Models Reconsidered, Administration & Society, vol 42, no1:66– 100.
Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Shannon Portillo. 2010. “Street-Level Bureaucratic Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, edited by Robert Durant. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Meyers, M. K., & Vorsanger, S. (2003). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 245-255). London, UK: Sage
Nielson, Vibeke L. 2006. “Are Street-Level Bureaucrats Compelled or Enticed to Cope?” Public Administration 84: 861–89.
Piore, Michael J, 2011, Beyond Markets: Sociology, street-level bureaucracy, and the management of the public sector, Regulation & Governance (2011) 5, 145–164.
Piore, Michael J., 2009, Sociology, Street-Level Bureaucracy, and the Management of the Public Sector, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Prottas, Jeffrey. 1979. People-Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies. Lexington: Lexington Press.
Riccucci, Norma. 2005. How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Scott Patrick G. 1997. "Assessing Determinants of Bureaucratic Discretion: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making" .J-PART. 7, 1: 35-57.
