Abstract
When public administrators resolve disputes between citizens and other state officials, are they truly impartial? The question is imperative for evaluating resolutions made by street-level bureaucrats whom citizens often perceive as the face of public administration. This study examines the relationship between public accreditation and the tendency of street-level bureaucrats’ resolutions to accept the state’s arguments or the citizens’ claims. Using quantitative analysis of administrative lower-court rulings in Israeli tax disputes, the findings link public accreditation to state favoritism in street-level resolutions. Such an outcome, if not accounted for, may jeopardize procedural fairness and erode public trust in government.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
