Dismantling the Weberian Orthodoxy: Bureaucratic Discretion, Street-Level Legitimacy, and the Post-NPM Governance Deficit in Fragmented Administrative States

Abstract

Contemporary public administration scholarship has long privileged Weberian hierarchical rationality as the normative benchmark for organizational accountability. This article critically interrogates that assumption by synthesizing multilevel governance theory, discretionary judgment frameworks, and post-New Public Management (post-NPM) institutional analysis across four OECD member states. Drawing on comparative case study methodology and structured elite interviews with 112 senior civil servants conducted between 2022 and 2024, the study identifies a systemic "legitimacy displacement" phenomenon whereby formal rule adherence erodes substantive democratic responsiveness at street-level bureaucratic interfaces. Findings demonstrate that fragmented administrative architectures systematically amplify principal–agent misalignment while constraining adaptive policy implementation. The article proposes a Discretionary Legitimacy Equilibrium (DLE) model as an alternative analytical scaffold for recalibrating accountability norms in post-hierarchical governance regimes. Policy implications for institutional redesign are discussed.