Does Public Accreditation Promote More State-Friendly Decisions at the Street Level?

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.