Individualized responsiveness is logically incompatible with formal agency accountability.

Evidence

It is a contradiction in terms to say that the worker should be accountable to respond to each client in the unique fashion appropriate to the presenting case. For no accountability can exist if the agency does not know what response it prefers, and it cannot assert a preferred response if each worker should be open to the possibility that unique and fresh responses are appropriate. It is more useful to suggest that street-level bureaucrats are ordinarily expected to be accountable to two sources of influence—agency preferences and clients’ claims. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1171

Categorization

• DEFINE: Redefines accountability as dual — to agency preference and to client claim — which is the conceptual frame the reader’s hypothesis needs.
• XREF: connects to: Perceived agency unresponsiveness is often just responsiveness to rival pressures — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 615; Informal human-relation influence cannot substitute for technicalized formal power.

Broader Connections

• Informal human-relation influence cannot substitute for technicalized formal power. #corroborates (0.80)
• Perceived agency unresponsiveness is often just responsiveness to rival pressures #complicates (0.75) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 615