Administrative burden research shows that onerous and dysfunctional policy design can have detrimental outcomes among policy recipients. But less is known about the intermediary role played by the street-level bureaucrats who enforce these policies in practice. Using two separate surveys of 775 unemployment benefit recipients and 107 counselors in the Danish unemployment benefit system, I find that recipients report higher levels of administrative burden when served by counselors who themselves experience red tape from the rules and procedures they have to implement. The findings have important policy implications by showing that experiences of frictions among those assigned to convert onerous policies into practice can exacerbate administrative burden among their clients.
AarøeL.BækgaardM.ChristensenJ.MoynihanD. (2021). Personality and public administration: Policymaker tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services. Public Administration Review, 81, 652–663.
2.
AliS.AltafS. W. (2021). Citizen trust, administrative capacity and administrative burden in Pakistan’s immunization program. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4(1), 1–17.
3.
AssoulineM.GiladS.Ben-Nun BloomP. (2022). Discrimination of minority welfare claimants in the real world: The effect of implicit prejudice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(1), 75–96
4.
BækgaardM.MikkelsenK. S.MadsenJ. K.ChristensenJ. (2021). Reducing compliance demands in government benefit programs improves the psychological well-being of target group members. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 806–821.
5.
BaekgaardM.TankinkT. (2022). Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual Spaghetti. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(1), 16–21
6.
BaviskarS.WinterS. C. (2017). Street-level bureaucrats as individual policymakers: The relationship between attitudes and coping behavior toward vulnerable children and youth. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 316–353.
7.
BellE.ChristensenJ.HerdP.MoynihanD. (2023). Health in citizen-state interactions: How physical and mental health problems shape experiences of administrative burden and reduce take-up. Public Administration Review, 83, 385–400.
8.
BellE.SmithK. (2019, June11–14). Perspectives from the front-line: Street-level bureaucrats, administrative burden and student access to Oklahoma’s promise [Paper presentation]. Public Management Research Association, Chapel Hill, NC, (Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 385–400).
9.
BellE.SmithK. (2022). Working within a system of administrative burden: How street-level Bureaucrats’ role perceptions shape access to the promise of higher education. Administration and Society, 54(2), 167–211.
10.
BlomR.BorstR. T.VoornB. (2020). Pathology or inconvenience? A meta- analysis of the impact of red tape on people and organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 623–650.
11.
BorryE. L. (2016). A new measure of red tape: Introducing the Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) Scale. International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 573–593.
12.
BorstR. T. (2018). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287–313.
13.
BozemanB. (2000) Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
BozemanB.FeeneyM. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. M. E. Sharpe.
15.
BredgaardT.LarsenF. (2005). Employment policy from different angles. DJØF-Forlaget.
16.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. (2010). Explaining variation in perceptions of red tape: A professionalism-marketization model. Public Administration, 88, 418–438.
17.
BrunettoY.TeoS. T. T.Farr-WhartonR.ShacklockK.ShribergA. (2017). Individual and organizational support does it affect red tape, stress and work outcomes of police officers in the USA?Personnel Review, 46, 750–766.
18.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2012). The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 741–751.
19.
CampbellJ. W.PandeyS. K.ArnesenL. (2023). The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta-narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 296–315.
20.
ChristensenJ.AarøeL.BækgaardM.HerdP.MoynihanD. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136.
21.
ChudnovskyM.PeetersR. (2021). The unequal distribution of administrative burden: A framework and an illustrative case study for understanding variation in people’s experience of burdens. Social Policy and Administration, 55(4), 527–542.
22.
CookeD. K.BrantK. K.WoodsJ. M. (2019). The role of public service motivation in employee work engagement: A test of the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(9), 765–775.
23.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
24.
DeHart-DavisL. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.
25.
DeHart-DavisL. (2017). Creating effective rules in public sector organizations. Georgetown University Press.
26.
DeHart-DavisL.DavisR. S.MohrZ. (2015). Green tape and job satisfaction: Can organizational rules make employees happy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 849–876.
27.
DeHart-DavisL.PandeyS. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148.
28.
Deloitte. (2018). Foranalyse vedr. gennemskrivning og forenkling af lovgivning på dagpengeområdet. STAR. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://star.dk/media/9573/bruttokatalog.pdf
29.
DudauA.KominisG.BrunettoY. (2020) Red tape and psychological capital: A counterbalancing act for professionals in street-level bureaucracies. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(3), 334–350.
30.
Faglig Fælles A-Kasse. (2019). Medlemsundersøgelse, April 2019.
FoxA. M.StazykE. C.FengW. (2020). Administrative easing: Rule reduction and Medicaid enrolment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 104–117.
33.
GeorgeB.PandeyS. K.SteijnB.DecramerA.AudenaertM. (2021). Red tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 81, 638–651.
34.
GuulT. S.PedersenM. J.PetersenN. B. G. (2020). Creaming among caseworkers: Effects of client competence and client motivation on caseworkers’ willingness to help. Public Administration Review, 81, 12–22.
35.
HattkeF.HenselD.KaluczaJ. (2020). Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63.
36.
HeinrichC. (2016). The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 403–420.
37.
HendersonA. C.BorryE. L. (2023). The emotional burdens of public service: Rules, trust, and emotional labour in emergency medical services, Public Money and Management, 43(5), 405–414.
38.
HerdP.DeLeireT.HarveyH.MoynihanD. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 69–81.
39.
HerdP.MoynihanD. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
HongS. (2020). Performance management meets red tape: Bounded rationality, negativity bias, and resource dependence. Public Administration Review, 80, 932–945.
41.
HuangF. L. (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 175–196.
42.
HuangF. L. (2018). Multilevel modeling myths. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 492–499.
43.
HuangQ.ZhangK.BodlaA. A.WangY. (2022). The influence of perceived red tape on public employees’ procrastination: The conservation of resource theory perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 4368.
44.
JacobsenC. B.HvitvedJ.AndersenL. B. (2014). Command and motivation: How the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790–806.
45.
JacobsenC. B.JakobsenM. L. (2018). Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 24–36.
46.
JilkeS.Van DoorenW.RysS. (2018). Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: Does a public–private difference exist?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 423–439.
47.
Jobindsats. (2021). A-dagpenge. Antal personer og fuldtidspersoner. Jobindsats.dk. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.jobindsats.dk/jobindsats/
48.
KaufmannW.HaansR. (2020). Understanding the meaning of concepts across domains through collocation analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 1–16.
49.
KaufmanH. (1977). Red tape: Its origins, uses and abuses. The Brookings Institution.
50.
KaufmannW.HooghiemstraR.FeeneyM. K. (2018). Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study. Public Administration, 96, 386–403.
51.
KaufmannW.TummersL. (2017) The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19, 1311–1327.
52.
KimJ. G.KimH. J.LeeK.-H. (2019). Understanding behavioral job search self-efficacy through the social cognitive lens: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 17–34.
53.
KnotzC. (2020), Does Demanding Activation Work? A Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Unemployment Benefit Conditionality on Employment in 21 Advanced Economies, 1980—2012. European Sociological Review, 36(1), 121–135.
54.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage Foundation.
55.
MadsenJ. K.MikkelsenK. S. (2022). How salient administrative burden affects job seekers’ locus of control and responsibility attribution: Evidence from a survey experiment, International Public Management Journal, 25, 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1951905
56.
MadsenJ. K.MikkelsenK. S.MoynihanD. (2022). Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, oh my! A user’s guide to the study of frictions. Public Administration, 100: 375–393.
57.
MasoodA.NisarM. A. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56–72.
58.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press.
59.
MigchelbrinkK.Van de WalleS. (2022). Increasing the cost of participation: red tape and public officials’ attitudes toward public participation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 644–662.
60.
MikkelsenK. S.MadsenJ. K.BaekgaardM. (2024). Is stress among street-level bureaucrats associated with experiences of administrative burden among clients? A multilevel study of the Danish unemployment sector. Public Administration Review, 24, 248–260.
61.
MikkelsenM. F.JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B. (2015). Managing employee motivation: Exploring the connections between managers’ enforcement actions, employee perceptions, and employee intrinsic motivation. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 1–23.
62.
Moesby-JensenC. K.NielsenH. S. (2015). Emotional labor in social workers’ practice. European Journal of Social Work, 18(5), 690–702.
63.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2014). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 43–69.
64.
MoynihanD.HerdP.RibgyE. (2016). Policymaking by other means: Do states use administrative barriers to limit access to Medicaid?Administration & Society, 48(4), 497–524.
65.
NisarM. A. (2018). Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119.
66.
OlsenA. L.Kyhse-AndersenJ. H.MoynihanD. P. (2022). The unequal distribution of opportunity: A national audit study of bureaucratic discrimination in primary school access. American Journal of Political Science, 66, 587–603.
67.
PandeyS. K. (2021). The psychological process view of bureaucratic red tape. In KniesE.SteijnB. (Eds.), Research handbook human resource management in the public sector. Edward Elgar, 260–275.
68.
PandeyS. K.KingsleyG. A. (2000). Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative explanations from a social psychological model, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779–800.
69.
PeetersR. (2019). The political economy of administrative burdens: A theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens. Administration & Society, 52, 566–592.
70.
PeetersR.WidlakA. (2018). The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture—the case of the Dutch civil registry’s master data management system. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 175–183.
71.
PeetersR.CamposSA. (2021). Taking the bite out of administrative burdens: How beneficiaries of a Mexican social program ease administrative burdens in street-level interactions. Governance, 34, 1001–1018.
72.
PorterE.RogowskiJ. C. (2018). Partisanship, bureaucratic responsiveness, and election administration: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 602–617.
73.
PotipiroonW. (2022) Rule formalization, Bureaucratic red tape, and prosocial rule breaking among street-level Bureaucrats: a citizen-centered perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(3), 638–671.
74.
PultzS.ChristensenK. B.TeasdaleT. W. (2019). Contextualized attribution: How young unemployed people blame themselves and the system and the relationship between blame and subjective well-being. Nordic Psychology, 72(2), 146–167.
75.
SharmaS.GautamH.ChaudharyR. (2020). Red tape and ambidexterity in government units. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(8), 736–743.
76.
SossJ.FordingR. C.SchramS. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.
77.
SteijnB.van der VoetJ. (2019). Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide. Public Admin. 97, 64–80.
78.
TummersL. L. G.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.
79.
Van LoonN. M. (2017). From red tape to which performance results? Exploring the relationship between red tape and various dimensions of performance in healthcare work units. Public Administration, 95(1), 60–77.
80.
Van LoonN. M.LeisinkP. L. M.KniesE.BrewerG. A. (2016). Red tape: Developing and validating a new job-centered measure. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 662–673.
81.
VansteenkisteM.RyanR. M.SoenensB. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 1–31.
82.
WanbergC. R.AliA. A.CsillagB. (2020). Job seeking: The process and experience of looking for a job. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 315–337.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
