Comparer des méthodes

	Red Tape Measurement	Street-Level Bureaucracy Analysis
Domaine	Public Administration	Public Administration
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2000	1980
Auteur d'origine	Barry Bozeman	Michael Lipsky
Type	Survey-based organizational measurement	Qualitative frontline-implementation analysis
Source fondatrice	Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 9780137566501	Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN: 9780871545442
Alias	Red Tape Assessment, Bureaucratic Red Tape Measurement, Organizational Red Tape Analysis	Frontline Discretion Analysis, Street-Level Discretion Study, Lipsky Street-Level Bureaucracy Framework
Apparentées	4	4
Résumé	Red tape measurement is the systematic assessment of burdensome organisational rules and procedures that impose compliance costs without advancing the legitimate purposes the rules were meant to serve. The approach was given rigorous theoretical foundations by Barry Bozeman, whose 2000 book Bureaucracy and Red Tape defined red tape precisely so that it could be studied rather than merely complained about. Crucially, the framework distinguishes pathological red tape from legitimate, functional rules, and separates the objective existence of rules from managers' and employees' perceptions of them. Its goal is to measure how much red tape an organisation carries, where it comes from, and what it costs in performance and morale.	Street-level bureaucracy analysis examines how frontline public employees — teachers, police officers, caseworkers, benefits clerks and nurses — exercise discretion when they deliver services directly to citizens. Coined by Michael Lipsky in his 1980 book Street-Level Bureaucracy, the approach argues that the decisions these workers make under conditions of scarce resources and conflicting demands effectively become public policy. The method studies how routines, coping strategies and informal rationing shape what citizens actually receive, often diverging from the policy written by legislators. Its goal is to explain the gap between policy as designed and policy as experienced at the counter.