Does digital government hollow out the essence of street‐level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools' foster curtailment, enablement and continuation of street‐level decision‐making

Abstract The growing use of digital tools in policy implementation has altered the work of street‐level bureaucrats who are granted substantial discretionary power in decision‐making. Digital tools can constrain discretionary power, like the curtailment thesis proposed, or serve as action resources, like the enablement thesis suggested. This article assesses empirical evidence of the impact of digital tools on street‐level work and decision‐making in service‐oriented and regulation‐oriented organisations based on a systematic literature review and thematic qualitative content analysis of 36 empirical studies published until 2021. The findings demonstrate different effects with regard to the role of digital tools and the core tasks of the public administration, depending on political and managerial goals and consequent system design. Leading or decisive digital tools mostly curtail discretion, especially in service‐oriented organisations. In contrast, an enhanced information base or recommendations for actions enable decision‐making, in particular in regulation‐oriented organisations. By showing how street‐level bureaucrats actively try to resist the curtailing effects caused by rigid design to address individual circumstances, for instance by establishing ways of coping like rule bending or rule breaking, using personal resources or prioritising among clients, this study demonstrates the importance of the continuation thesis and the persistently crucial role of human judgement in policy implementation.