Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-h6shg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-03T00:34:42.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking street-level bureaucracy: everyday bordering and networks of enactment and resistance in mixed welfare economies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2025

Julie Walsh Open the ORCID record for Julie Walsh [Opens in a new window]  and
Maria Teresa Ferazzoli Open the ORCID record for Maria Teresa Ferazzoli [Opens in a new window]
Julie Walsh*
Affiliation:
The University of Sheffield, School of Sociological Studies, Politics and International Relations, Sheffield, UK
Maria Teresa Ferazzoli
Affiliation:
The University of Sheffield, School of Sociological Studies, Politics and International Relations, Sheffield, UK
*
Corresponding author: Julie Walsh; Email: j.c.walsh@sheffield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper brings together Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy framework and the concept of everyday bordering to interrogate mechanisms through which diverse social care professions – working with migrant families – enact and/or resist the UK’s hostile policies towards immigration. We show that, in contexts of mixed welfare provision, and hostile bordering practices, who is an actor in policy implementation is unclear. Instead, we conceptualise that ‘networks of support’ services develop, which are characterised by provision: directly provided by the state; commissioned by the state but delivered by non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and funded by independent bodies and delivered by NGOs. In turn, we theorise that ‘networks of enactment’ and ‘networks of resistance’ develop, whereby practice interactions simultaneously perpetuate and dilute hostile environment ideologies. By delineating these networks, we offer new ways of distinguishing between the types of bordering practices that occur in social care provision within mixed welfare economies – these being ‘statutory bordering’, ‘co-opted bordering’ and ‘shadow bordering’ – as well as strategies employed to resist state exclusionary bordering practices. In doing so, we advance the theories of everyday bordering and street level bureaucracy, offering a more nuanced perspective on the relationship between the state and diverse social care professions.

Keywords

street-level bureaucracyeveryday borderingsocial caremigrant families

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , First View , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alden, S. (2015). Discretion on the frontline: The street level bureaucrat in english statutory homelessness services. Social Policy and Society: a Journal of the Social Policy Association, 14(1), 63–77.10.1017/S1474746414000402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreetta, S. (2022). Granting ‘Human Dignity’: How emotions and professional ethos make public services. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 40(2), 36–53.10.3167/cja.2022.400204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anitha, S., & Gill, A. (2022). Domestic violence during the pandemic: ‘By and For’ frontline practitioners’ mediation of practice and policies to support racially minoritized women. Organization, 29(3), 460–477 10.1177/13505084221074039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASW (2023). Age assessment: BASW practice guide. BASW.Google Scholar
Berg, M. L., Gidley, B., & Krausova, A. (2019). Welfare micropublics and inequality: Urban super-diversity in a time of austerity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(15), 2723–2742.10.1080/01419870.2018.1557728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, M. (2020). The permission to be cruel: Street-level bureaucrats and harms against people seeking asylum. Critical Criminology, 28, 277–292.10.1007/s10612-020-09515-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, A., & McKay, S. (2015). Employment, social networks and undocumented migrants: The employer perspective. Sociology, 49(1), 38–55.10.1177/0038038514532039CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borrelli, L.M., Hedlund, D., Johannesson, L. & Lindberg, A. (2023). Border Bureaucracies:A Literature Review of Discretion in Migration Control. Working Paper #32. NCCRGoogle Scholar
Brambilla, C., Laine, J., & Bocchi, G. (2015). Borderscaping: Imaginations and practices of border making. Routledge.Google Scholar
Briggs, A., & Hall, S. M. (2023). Running on empty: Austerity, rising costs of living and growing inequality for people and charitable organisations in Northern England. Independent Social Research Foundation Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2012). Reflections on street level bureaucracy: Past, present and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949.10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coddington, K. (2019). The slow violence of life without cash: Borders, state restrictions, and exclusion in the U.K. and Australia. Geographical Review, 109(4), 527–543.10.1111/gere.12332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J., McKee, K., & Leahy, S. (2020). More than a hostile environment: Exploring the impact of the right to rent part of the immigration act 2016. Sociological Research Online, 25(2), 236–253.10.1177/1360780419867708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, E., & Rosen, R. (2021). ‘Punishing those who do the wrong thing’: Enforcing destitution and debt through the UK’s family migration rules. Critical Social Policy, 41(4), 545–65.10.1177/0261018320980634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, K. (2011). ‘Street-level Bureaucracy’ revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy and Administration, 45(3), 221–224.10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00766.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farwa, A., & Henman, P. (2023). Informal third-party actors in street-level welfare decisions: a case study of Pakistan social assistance. Journal of Social Policy, 54(3), 811–828.10.1017/S0047279423000405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjersøe, H. M., & Strand, A. H. (2021). The street-level organisation in-between employer needs and client needs: Creaming users by motivation in the norwegian employment and welfare service (NAV). Journal of Social Policy, 52(3), 682–699.10.1017/S0047279421000933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gov.uk. (2024). ‘National Referral Mechanism Guidance’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-trafficking-victims-referral-and-assessment-forms/guidance-on-the-national-referral-mechanism-for-potential-adult-victims-of-modern-slavery-england-and-wales [accessed 10.06.24].Google Scholar
Gov.uk. (2025). ‘UASC funding instructions to local authorities 2024 to 2025’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unaccompanied-asylum-seeking-children-uasc-grant-instructions/uasc-funding-instructions-to-local-authorities-2023-to-2024-accessible [accessed 07.03.25]Google Scholar
Griffiths, M., & Yeo, C. (2021). The UK’s hostile environment: Deputising immigration control. Critical Social Policy, 41(4), 521–544.10.1177/0261018320980653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, B. (2004). An unacceptable role for social workers: Implementing immigration policy. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(11), 93–107.10.1093/bjsw/bch007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphris, R. (2019). Mutating faces of the state? Austerity, migration and faith-based volunteers in a UK downscaled urban context. The Sociological Review, 67(1), 95–110.10.1177/0038026118793035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, A., & Gupta, A. (2022). Children and families with no recourse to public funds: Learning from case reviews. Children and Society, 38(1), 16–31.10.1111/chso.12646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkup, J., & Winett, R. (2012). ‘Theresa May interview: ‘We’re going to give illegal migrants a really hostile reception’, The Telegraph, 25th May.Google Scholar
Lewis, H., Waite, L., & Hodgkinson, S. (2017). Hostile’ UK immigration policy and asylum seekers’ susceptibility to forced labour. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-58739-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. (30th anniversary edition) Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Macmillan, R., & Ellis Paine, A. (2021). The third sector in a strategically selective landscape – the case of commissioning public services. Journal of Social Policy, 50(3), 606–626.10.1017/S0047279420000355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayblin, L., & James, P. (2018). Asylum and refugee support in the UK: Civil society filling the gaps?. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(3), 375–394.10.1080/1369183X.2018.1466695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, C. (2023) ‘Rising demand and decreasing resources’: Theorising the ‘cost of austerity’ as a barrier to social worker discretion. Journal of Social Policy, 52(1), 197–214.10.1017/S0047279421000507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. (2020). ‘Irrational rationalities and governmentality-effected neglect in immigration practice: Legal migrants’ entitlements to services and benefits in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Sociology, 71, 96–111.10.1111/1468-4446.12720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Social Work England (2024) Professional standards. https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/standards/professional-standards/ [Accessed on 03.04.25]Google Scholar
Sundbäck, L. (2023). ‘Trust shaping in forced migrants’ institutional encounters in the finnish welfare state. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 13(2), 7.10.33134/njmr.532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, L., Lewis, H., Murray, R., & Tomalin, E. (2023). ‘Faith, bordering and modern slavery: A UK case study’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 0(0).Google Scholar
Walsh, J., Khan, A., & Ferazzoli, M. T. (2023) Portholes of ethnography: The methodological learning from ‘Being There’ at a distance. Sociology, 57(01), 243–252.10.1177/00380385221122458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, J., Khoo, E., & Nygren, K. (2022) ‘Everyday bordering’ in England, Sweden and Bulgaria: Social work decision-making processes when working with migrant family members. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 23(1) 343–361.10.1007/s12134-021-00838-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wroe, L. (2019). Social working without borders: Challenging privatisation and complicity with the hostile environment. Critical and Radical Social Work, 7(2), 251–255.10.1332/204986019X15623302985278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2018). Everyday bordering, belonging and reorientation of British Immigration legislation. Sociology, 52(02), 1–17.10.1177/0038038517702599CrossRefGoogle Scholar