Client consent in street-level encounters is continually managed rather than freely given

Evidence

For the most part, except in the more coercive bureaucracies, clients give their consent because (sometimes in combination) they accept the legitimacy of the street-level bureaucrats’ position and decision, anticipate that dissent would not be productive, or consider themselves favored by the decision or action taken. Most encounters with bureaucracy appear to be characterized by the consent of clients, but the structure of choices available to clients limits the range of alternative behaviors that they consider realistically available. In short, clients’ consent is continuously being managed by public agencies. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 441

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic Lipsky ‘consent management’ thesis — connects to how frontline discretion manufactures the appearance of client agreement, relevant to the reader’s question about how administrative practice outpaces cultural narrative change because consent is engineered encounter by encounter. — connects to: Coercive interrogations are staged as voluntary and formally consensual — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 980; Social control includes winning consent, not just coercive punishment

Broader Connections

• Coercive interrogations are staged as voluntary and formally consensual #exemplifies (0.85) — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 980
• Social control includes winning consent, not just coercive punishment #expands (0.80)