Policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines: Are they susceptible to strategic
communication?
Andersen & Jakobsen, 2016
Introduction
The implementation of policies by street-level bureaucrats is deeply affected by their own
positions on the policy issues in question. This poses a fundamental question about what
affects the policy positions of bureaucrats. In this article, we center on whether ‘’frames’’ and
‘’cues’’ embedded in communication affect the policy positions of bureaucrats working at the
front lines of government. Framing refers to emphasizing one subset of considerations rather
than others when describing an object, for example, emphasizing a certain aspect of a
policy. A cue is a piece of information (e.g., expert advice) that enables individuals to make
simplified evaluations without analyzing extensive information.
Based on the notion that bureaucrats often adhere to certain professional norms when
developing their attitudes toward policies, we hypothesize that communication that aligns
policies with such norms moves the policy positions of bureaucrats in favor of the policy. In
contrast, communication that connects policies with dimensions outside the professional
norms is expected to be ineffective, or it may even produce negative attitudes toward the
policy.
The experiments confirm that frames and cues that align policies with professional norms
rooted in bureaucracy have a consistent impact on policy positions among street-level
bureaucrats across different administrative contexts. One of the experiments, which is able
to separate the effect of frames and cues, shows that both frames and cues have the
potential to affect the policy positions of bureaucrats. Yet this experiment also shows that
even a cue that aligns a policy with professional norms is ineffective if it is combined with a
frame that does not fit the professional norms.
Bureaucrats’ policy positions and communication effects
Numerous studies have shown that the manner in which bureaucrats implement political
decisions is often influenced by opinions, values, preferences, and their own interpretations
of the world, bureaucratic ideology, and values institutionalized in standard operating
procedures, as well as by more immediate attitudes toward specific policies. We distinguish
between bureaucrats’ policy positions - that is, preferences for specific policies - and more
fundamental norms, values, or ideologies.
Bureaucrats’ policy positions are important for their behavior. The transition of attitudes in
behavior is assumed to take place in a cognitive process in which beliefs about what is
expected of a person are important for that person’s behavior. Despite little consensus about
how exactly attitudes influence behaviors, research in public administration and psychology
suggests that understanding the attitudes of bureaucrats toward a given policy is important
for understanding their implementation of that policy.
Bureaucrats are likely to be predisposed toward certain positions on the policies they
implement because they are usually experts in their field, their work is affected by the
policies they are asked to implement, and they are bound by norms that influence their policy
positions. Strong predispositions are likely to render people more resistant to communication
effects. Yet, bureaucrats may be susceptible to some types of communication.
In the inventory of what makes a strong frame in public opinion research, we find frames that
resonate in a credible manner with and invoke strong consensus values and back them up
with reference to credible sources. Strong consensus values mean that most people share
communication?
Andersen & Jakobsen, 2016
Introduction
The implementation of policies by street-level bureaucrats is deeply affected by their own
positions on the policy issues in question. This poses a fundamental question about what
affects the policy positions of bureaucrats. In this article, we center on whether ‘’frames’’ and
‘’cues’’ embedded in communication affect the policy positions of bureaucrats working at the
front lines of government. Framing refers to emphasizing one subset of considerations rather
than others when describing an object, for example, emphasizing a certain aspect of a
policy. A cue is a piece of information (e.g., expert advice) that enables individuals to make
simplified evaluations without analyzing extensive information.
Based on the notion that bureaucrats often adhere to certain professional norms when
developing their attitudes toward policies, we hypothesize that communication that aligns
policies with such norms moves the policy positions of bureaucrats in favor of the policy. In
contrast, communication that connects policies with dimensions outside the professional
norms is expected to be ineffective, or it may even produce negative attitudes toward the
policy.
The experiments confirm that frames and cues that align policies with professional norms
rooted in bureaucracy have a consistent impact on policy positions among street-level
bureaucrats across different administrative contexts. One of the experiments, which is able
to separate the effect of frames and cues, shows that both frames and cues have the
potential to affect the policy positions of bureaucrats. Yet this experiment also shows that
even a cue that aligns a policy with professional norms is ineffective if it is combined with a
frame that does not fit the professional norms.
Bureaucrats’ policy positions and communication effects
Numerous studies have shown that the manner in which bureaucrats implement political
decisions is often influenced by opinions, values, preferences, and their own interpretations
of the world, bureaucratic ideology, and values institutionalized in standard operating
procedures, as well as by more immediate attitudes toward specific policies. We distinguish
between bureaucrats’ policy positions - that is, preferences for specific policies - and more
fundamental norms, values, or ideologies.
Bureaucrats’ policy positions are important for their behavior. The transition of attitudes in
behavior is assumed to take place in a cognitive process in which beliefs about what is
expected of a person are important for that person’s behavior. Despite little consensus about
how exactly attitudes influence behaviors, research in public administration and psychology
suggests that understanding the attitudes of bureaucrats toward a given policy is important
for understanding their implementation of that policy.
Bureaucrats are likely to be predisposed toward certain positions on the policies they
implement because they are usually experts in their field, their work is affected by the
policies they are asked to implement, and they are bound by norms that influence their policy
positions. Strong predispositions are likely to render people more resistant to communication
effects. Yet, bureaucrats may be susceptible to some types of communication.
In the inventory of what makes a strong frame in public opinion research, we find frames that
resonate in a credible manner with and invoke strong consensus values and back them up
with reference to credible sources. Strong consensus values mean that most people share
