[
1. Adler, Paul S., and Bryan Borys. “Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 1 (1996): 61–89.10.2307/2393986
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Antonsen, Stian, Kari Skarholt, and Arne J. Ringstad. “The role of standardization in safety management – A case study of a major oil & gas company.” Safety Science Vol. 50, No. 10 (2012): 2001–2009 // https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.001.10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Bannink, Duco, Frédérique Six, Eelco van Wijk. “Bureaucratic, market or professional control? A theory on the relation between street-level task characteristics and the feasibility of control mechanisms”: 205-227. In: Peter Hupe, Michael Hill, and Aurèlien Buffat, eds. Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015 // https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001.10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Bovens, Mark, and Stavros Zouridis. “From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control.” Public Administration Review Vol. 62, No. 2 (2002): 174–184 // https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168.10.1111/0033-3352.00168
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Bringselius, Louise. “Gaining legitimacy as a public official: The case of supportive employee attitudes to the standardization of work”. International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 35, No. 8 (2012): 544–552 // https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.661185.10.1080/01900692.2012.661185
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Brodkin, Evelyn Z., and Gregory Marston. Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. “Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 17, No.1 (2007): 1–17 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj019.10.1093/jopart/muj019
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 21, No. 2 (2011): 253–277 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093.10.1093/jopart/muq093
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Brunsson, Nils, Andreas Rasche, and David Seidl. “The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies.” Organization Studies Vol. 33, No. 5 (2012): 613–632 // https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612450120.10.1177/0170840612450120
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Buffat, Aurélien. “Street-level bureaucracy and e-government.” Public Management Review Vol. 17, No. 1 (2015): 149–153 // https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.771699.10.1080/14719037.2013.771699
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Busch A. Peter. “The Role of Contextual Factors in the Influence of ICT on Street-Level Discretion”: 2963–2972. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017).10.24251/HICSS.2017.358
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Customer (taxpayer) service standard, 2017. State Tax Inspectorate.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Denhardt, Robert B., Janet V. Denhardt, and Tara A. Blanc. Public administration: An action orientation. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Evans Tony. Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Foldy, Erica G., Tamara R. Buckley. “Re-creating street-level practice: The role of routines, work groups, and team learning.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 20, No. 1 (2010): 778–796 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun034.10.1093/jopart/mun034
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Hansen, Hans-Tore, Kjetil Lundberg, and Liv J. Syltevik. “Digitalization, Street-Level Bureaucracy and Welfare Users’ Experiences.” Social Policy & Administration Vol. 52, No. 1 (2016): 67–90 // https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12283.10.1111/spol.12283
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Hanseth, Ole, Bendik Bygstad. “Flexible generification: ICT standardization strategies and service innovation in health care.” European Journal of Information Systems Vol. 24, No. 6 (2015): 645–663 // https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.1.10.1057/ejis.2015.1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Harrits, Sommer G. “Being Professional and Being Human. Professional’s Sensemaking in the Context of Close and Frequent Interactions with Citizens.” Professions and Professionalism Vol. 6, No. 2 (2016): 1–17 // https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.1522.10.7577/pp.1522
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Harrits, Sommer G. “Street-level bureaucracy research and professionalism”: 193–209. In: Hupe Peter, ed. Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019 // https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.10.4337/9781786437631
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Henman, Paul, and Mitchell Dean. “E-government and the production of standardized individuality”: 77–93. In: Higgins Vaughan and Larner Wendy, eds. Calculating the social: Standards and the reconfiguration of governing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010 // https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289673.10.1057/9780230289673
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Higgins, Vaughan, and Wendy Larner. “From Standardization to Standardizing Work”: 1–17. In: Higgins Vaughan and Larner Wendy, eds. Calculating the social: Standards and the reconfiguration of governing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 // https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289673.10.1057/9780230289673
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Hupe, Peter, Michael Hill, and Aurélien Buffat, eds. Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015 // https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001.10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
23. Hupe, Peter, and Michael Hill. “Street-level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability.” Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 2 (2007): 279–299 // https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x.10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
24. Hupe, Peter. “Dimensions of Discretion: Specifying the Object of Street-level Bureaucracy Research.” Der Moderne Staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management Vol. 6, No.2 (2013): 425–440.10.3224/dms.v6i2.10
]Search in Google Scholar
[
25. Lampland, Martha, Susan L. Star. Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2009.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
26. Lipsky, Michael. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation, 1980.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
27. Lipsky, Michael. Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation, 2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
28. Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Michael Musheno. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Narratives of Street-Level Judgment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003.10.3998/mpub.11924
]Search in Google Scholar
[
29. Mik-Meyer, Nanna. The power of citizens and professionals in welfare encounters: The influence of bureaucracy, market and psychology. Manchester University Press, 2017.10.7228/manchester/9781526110282.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
30. Mintzberg, Henry. “Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design.” Management Science Vol. 26, No.3 (1980): 322–341 // https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322.10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322
]Search in Google Scholar
[
31. Nissinboim, Noa, and Eitan Naveh. “Process standardization and error reduction: A revisit from a choice approach.” Safety Science Vol. 103 (2018): 43–50// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.015.10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.015
]Search in Google Scholar
[
32. Noordegraaf, Mirko. “Risky business: how professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues.” Organization Studies Vol. 32, No. 10 (2011): 1349–1371 // https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611416748.10.1177/0170840611416748
]Search in Google Scholar
[
33. Nygaard, Pål. “Professional autonomy versus corporate control.” Professions and Professionalism Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012): 11–26 // https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.164.10.7577/pp.v2i1.164
]Search in Google Scholar
[
34. Ortmann, Günther. “On drifting rules and standards.” Scandinavian Journal of Management Vol. 26, No. 2 (2010): 204–214 // https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.02.004.10.1016/j.scaman.2010.02.004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
35. Perminienė, Leonilija. “Social insurance – guarantee to the future. Tax news” (March 2006) // http://www.mzinios.lt/lt/2006-03-31/straipsniai/temide/socialinis_draudimas_garantija_ateiciai.html.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
36. Pors, Anja S. “Becoming digital – passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy.” Journal of Organizational Ethnography Vol. 4, No. 2 (2015): 177–192 // https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031.10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031
]Search in Google Scholar
[
37. Regarding the approval of quality standards of mediation in employment and consultation service provision and the main customer service rules. State Employment Agency. 2013 TAR. No. 11322DBISAK000V-197 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.446904?jfwid=rivwzvpvg.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
38. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Insurance Fund administration institutions, 2010. State Social Security Agency.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
39. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Insurance Fund administration institutions, 2014. State Social Security Agency.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
40. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Security Agency institutions, 2013. State Social Security Agency.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
41. Regarding the approval of the description of employment market service provision and order. State Employment Agency. 2009 TAR. No. 1092230ISAK00A1-476 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.350730?jfwid=q8i88m7to.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
42. Regarding the approval of the United style handbook, 2005. State Social Security Agency.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
43. Regarding the methodological recommendations of tax-payer servicing in the State Tax Inspectorate. State Tax Inspectorate. 2005 LAR. No. 1052055ISAK000VA-77 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.266670?jfwid=dgaa1vusg.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
44. Riccucci, Norma M. How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2005.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
45. Røhnebæk, Maria. “Standardized Flexibility: The Choreography of ICT in Standardization of Service Work.” Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research Vol. 4, No.4 (2012): 679–698 // https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.124679.10.3384/cu.2000.1525.124679
]Search in Google Scholar
[
46. Schuppan, Tino. “Service workers on the electronic leash? Street-level bureaucrats in the emerging information and communication technology work contexts”: 243–261. In: Hupe Peter and Hill Michael, eds. Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
47. Timmermans, Stefan, and Steven Epstein. “A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 36 (2010): 69–89 // https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629.10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629
]Search in Google Scholar
[
48. Tummers, Lars, and Victor Bekkers. “Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion.” Public Management Review Vol. 16, No. 4 (2014): 527–547 // https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978.10.1080/14719037.2013.841978
]Search in Google Scholar
[
49. Vedung, Evert. “Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies.” Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy Vol. 1, No. 2 (2015): 15–19 // https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28643.10.3402/nstep.v1.28643
]Search in Google Scholar
[
50. Wallace, John, and Bob Pease. “Neoliberalism and Australian social work: Accommodation or resistance?” Journal of Social Work Vol. 11, No. 2 (2015): 132–142 // https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310387318.10.1177/1468017310387318
]Search in Google Scholar
[
51. Wastell, David, Barbara S. White, Matt K. Broadhurst, Sue Peckover, and Andrew Pithouse. “Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Švejkism.” International Journal of Social Welfare Vol.19, No. 3 (2010): 310–320 // https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x.10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x
]Search in Google Scholar
