Hester Paanakker

professional settings and how much leeway they are institutionally afforded in concrete street- level practice. Through empirical assessment we seek to explore and further develop the meaning and potential of public craftsmanship in public administration theory and practice and to gain more insight in the street level application of public values to real life practices. We understand public craftsmanship to encompass the skills and values that represent an internalized motivation and competence for quality-driven work: the desire, skill and commitment “to do a job well for its own sake” (Sennett, 2008, p. 9) that serves particularly well to reflect street level professionals and the tangible nature of the tasks they perform, but also their experiential knowledge, and the malleable nature of their service delivery. Empirical research on how public craftsmanship can be understood, in particular from a values perspective, is lagging behind. But street level professionals absorb and transmit values on a daily basis. They do so in a continuous interplay with the organizational system they are embedded in and influenced by (Noordegraaf, 2007), also proactively influencing it themselves: the way values manifest themselves in street level craftsmanship and how these professionals handle their work shapes the bureaucratic reality of policy implementation (cf. (Caswell, Kupka, Larsen, & Van Berkel, 2017; Hupe, Hill, & Buffat, 2016; Lipsky, 2010; Stewart, 2006; Tummers et al., 2015). Through their management of values, we claim that, in street-level contexts, public professionals are craftsmen who make, repair and actively craft policy. Studying the decisive influence of the institutional environment as well as the importance of values, that, in this context, may or may not be at stake in professional conduct or craftsmanship is of particular importance. The public profession is becoming increasingly complex in an era of globalization, digitalization, changing work standards, and technologies, fragmented division of professional labor, managerialism-induced regulations and reforms, distrust and polarization, and an ever more demanding and assertive citizenry (Noordegraaf, 2016; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; Van de Walle, 2011). While some argue the pervasive nature of new public management reforms is primarily to blame, others question the assumption that public professionals are merely voiceless victims (Boin, James, & Lodge, 2006; Van Loon & Noordegraaf, 2014). According to Trommel (2018) for instance, professionals seem to be absorbed by the target- oriented governance systems they themselves co-produce and sustain, working less from an intrinsic motivation of dedication and compassion. Likewise, Noordegraaf argues that 66 Chapter 3