Relational street‐level bureaucracy: Proximity policing and the construction of trust between citizens and municipal police officers in Nezahualcóyotl, Mexico

Abstract

AbstractVarious studies have provided evidence that, especially in the Global South, relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy that often fails to guarantee citizens’ rights and factual access to public services and benefits. However, studies have also highlighted street‐level bureaucracies’ vulnerability to practices of corruption, patrimonialism, and clientelism as they engage with citizens through more informal mechanisms. In this article, we contribute to understanding which institutional conditions can promote constructive citizen‐bureaucrat interactions by presenting findings from a qualitative study on proximity policing in a densely populated suburb of Mexico City with some of the highest crime levels in the entire metropolitan area. Sustained and managerially supported implementation of proximity policing has improved citizen‐police relations and facilitated learning processes by both officers and residents, while minimizing risks of clientelism. Although this model of municipal policing is no panacea for complex security issues, it does confirm existing evidence regarding the importance of relational street‐level bureaucracy for improving citizen trust and, moreover, highlights the importance of consistent managerial and citizen involvement as enabling factors.Points for practitioners The traditional focus on bureaucratic control and capacities has often involuntarily ended up worsening public service provision in contexts with weak state institutions. Relational street‐level bureaucracy can play a constructive role in bridging the gap between vulnerable population groups and a distant, formal bureaucracy. Consistent managerial support, citizen involvement, and professional deliberation are crucial elements in mitigating the downsides of informality in street‐level interactions.