Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-1
Trapped in the Sandwich layer: How Does Administrative Burden Influence the Willingness of Street-Level Bureaucrats to Exercise Discretion?—A Survey Experimental Study
As the national governance focus shifts downward, the administrative burden on street-level bureaucrats(SLBs) continues to increase. Consequently, SLBs appear less inclined to exercise their discretion, resulting in the phenomena of “lying flat” and “avoiding responsibility” at the grassroots level. This study uses a survey experiment to simulate street enforcement scenarios and analyze the relationship between administrative burden and the willingness of SLBs to exercise their discretion. The study found that SLBs’ willingness to exercise discretion weakens under administrative burdens. Additionally, public service motivation may exacerbate the perception of administrative burden in high-enforcement-burden scenarios. The research findings offer a framework for optimizing the structure of grassroots administrative burdens and increasing the willingness of SLBs to exercise their discretion.
AguinisH.BradleyK. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
2.
AndersenS. C.GuulT. S. (2019). Reducing minority discrimination at the front line—Combined survey and field experimental evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy083
3.
AndrewsC. (2016). Integrating public service motivation and self-determination theory. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(3), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-10-2015-0176
4.
AnsellC.SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2023). Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses. Public Administration, 101(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12874
5.
BachrachP.BaratzM. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796
BarnesA.GrayerM. (2025). Divisive concept legislation in the classroom: Assessing teacher discretion-as-perceived. Administration & Society, 57(3), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997251313973
8.
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 & Society, 54, 167–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211027535
9.
BernardsB.SchmidtE.GroeneveldS. (2024). Rebel with a cause: The effects of leadership encouragement and psychological safety on professionals' prosocial rulebreaking behavior. Public Administration, 102(4), 1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12976
10.
BozemanB.YoutieJ. (2020). Robotic bureaucracy: Administrative Burden and red Tape in University Research. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13105
11.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02600.x
12.
BuschP. A. (2023). Faced with digital bureaucrats: A scenario-based survey analysis of how clients perceive automation in street-level decision-making. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101872Article101872.
13.
Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. (2025). General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and General Office of the State Council Issued the “Regulations on Rectifying Formalism to Alleviate Burdens at the Primary Level”. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202508/content_7035438.htm
14.
ChangA.BrewerG. A. (2023). Street-level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2191–2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517
15.
ChenQ.LiuH.MaoP.QianJ.TanY.XiahouX.CuiP. (2022). How does NIMBYism Influence Residents’ behavioral willingness to dispose of waste in centralized collection Points?—An empirical study of Nanjing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15806. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315806
16.
CohenN. (2022). An exploratory examination of the relationship between trust and street-level bureaucrats’ willingness to risk their lives for others. American Review of Public Administration, 52(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211055470
17.
CullenJ. G. (2009). How to sell your soul and still get into Heaven: Steven Covey’s epiphany-inducing technology of effective selfhood. Human Relations, 62(8), 1231–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709334493
18.
DavidovitzM. (2025). Vulnerability in frontline public service: Potential threats and implications for policy implementation. Public Management Review, 27, 2447–2468. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2430755
19.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022a). Frontline social service as a battlefield: Insights from street-level bureaucrats’ interactions with violent clients. Social Policy and Administration, 56(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12756
20.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022b). Playing defence: The impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review, 24(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
21.
DavidovitzM.CohenN.GofenA. (2021). Governmental response to crises and its implications for street-level implementation: Policy ambiguity, risk, and discretion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 23(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1841561
22.
DavisK. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry (Vol. 2). LSU Press.
23.
de BoerN. (2021).The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats' enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?Public Policy and Administration, 36(4), 452–475, Article 0952076720905005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905005
24.
DeciE. L.OlafsenA. H.RyanR. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
26.
DoughtyM.BaehlerK. J. (2020). Hostages to compliance" :towards a reasonableness test for administrative burdens. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa010
27.
EisenbergerR.ArmeliS.RexwinkelB.LynchP. D.RhoadesL. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42
EisenbergerR.StinglhamberF.VandenbergheC.SucharskiI. L.RhoadesL. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
30.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
31.
GagnéM.DeciE. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
32.
GershgorenS.CohenN. (2023). Street-level bias: Examining factors related to street-level bureaucrats’ state or citizen favoritism. American Review of Public Administration, 53(3–4), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231167897
33.
GershgorenS.CohenN. (2024). Does the teaming of career street-level bureaucrats and lay officials promote street-level resolutions that favour the citizens' claims?Public Management Review, 26(8), 2306–2330. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2268088
34.
GofenA. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut037
35.
GrenierS.GagnéM.O'NeillT. (2024). Self-determination theory and its implications for team motivation. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 73(4), 1833–1865. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12526
36.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112
37.
HassanM. S.Al HalbusiH.AhmadA. B.AbdelfattahF.ThamirZ.Raja AriffinR. N. (2023). Discretion and its effects: Analyzing the role of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement styles. International Review of Public Administration, 28(4), 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2023.2286671
38.
HendersonA.ȚiclăuT.BalicaD. (2018). Perceptions of discretion in street-level public service: Examining administrative governance in Romania. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(3), 620–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400987
39.
HombergF.VogelR.WeiherlJ. (2019). Public service motivation and continuous organizational change: Taking charge behaviour at police services. Public Administration, 97(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12354
40.
HondeghemA.PerryJ. L. (2009). EGPA symposium on public service motivation and performance: Introduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852308099502
41.
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. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4368
42.
JacobsenC. B.JakobsenM. L. (2018). Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in Public Services. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12817
43.
JensenD. C.PedersenL. B. (2017). The impact of empathy—Explaining diversity in street-level decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw070
44.
JensenU. T.BroL. L. (2018). How transformational leadership supports intrinsic motivation and public service motivation: The mediating role of basic need satisfaction. American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017699470
45.
JiangY. P.WaleyP. (2020). Small horse pulls big cart in the scalar struggles of competing administrations in Anhui Province, China. Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space, 38(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419866469
46.
JohannessenL. E. F. (2019). Negotiated discretion: Redressing the neglect of negotiation in “Street-Level Bureaucracy”. Symbolic Interaction, 42(4), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.451
47.
JonesC. (2001). Voices from the front line: State social workers and new labour. British Journal of Social Work, 31(4), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.4.547
48.
KaufmannW.BorryE. L.DeHart-DavisL. (2019). More than pathological formalization: Understanding organizational structure and red Tape. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12958
49.
KeulemansS.GroeneveldS. (2020). Supervisory Leadership at the Frontlines: Street-level discretion, supervisor influence, and street-level bureaucrats' attitude towards clients. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz019
50.
KimS. (2009). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of Public Service Motivation. American Review of Public Administration, 39(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008317681
51.
KlattT.FairholmM. (2023). Promote or deter: How organizations influence Public Service Motivation. Public Personnel Management, 52(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221121101
52.
KottkeJ. L.SharafinskiC. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488484024
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (PP.12). Russell Sage Foundation.
55.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (PP. 3-4). Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
LiuL.WangY. (2023). How Street-level bureaucrats collaborate for Policy Entrepreneurship: Insights from anti-poverty policy implementation in China. Administration & Society, 55(9), 1791–1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231187082
57.
LiuL.WangY. (2025). Between trust and blame: Citizen perceptions of street-level bureaucrats during the pandemic. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13073
58.
MadsenJ. K. (2024). Frictions on both sides of the counter? A study of red tape among street-level bureaucrats and administrative burden among their clients. Administration & Society, 56(6), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241244694
59.
MadsenJ. K.MikkelsenK. S.MoynihanD. P. (2022). Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, Oh my!: A user’s guide to the study of frictions. Public Administration, 100(2), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12717
60.
MarvelJ. D.ReshW. G. (2015). Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013492008
61.
MasoodA.NisarM. A. (2022). Repairing the state: Policy repair in the frontline bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13414
62.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors stories from the front lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press.
63.
MoS.LupoliM. J.NewmanA.UmphressE. E. (2023). Good intentions, bad behavior: A review and synthesis of the literature on unethical prosocial behavior (UPB) at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2617
64.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
65.
NisarM. A.MasoodA. (2020). Dealing with disgust: Street-level bureaucrats as agents of Kafkaesque bureaucracy. Organization, 27(6), 882–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419883382
66.
ParkJ. (2025). Procedural politicking for what? Bureaucratic reputation and democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae020
67.
PeetersR.CamposS. A. (2023). Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196
68.
PerryJ. L. (1996). Measuring Public Service Motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181620
69.
QiuX.ZhangJ.YiC. (2025). Can information frames nudge citizens to co-produce in emergency preparedness? —Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Management Review. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2025.2501004
70.
RaoS. K.KimballA. B.LehrhoffS. R.HidrueM. K.ColtonD. G.FerrisT. G.TorchianaD. F. (2017). The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: Results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001461
71.
RhoadesL.EisenbergerR. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
72.
RiccucciN. M. (2005). Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui005
73.
RitzA.SchottC.NitzlC.AlfesK. (2020). Public service motivation and prosocial motivation: Two sides of the same coin?Public Management Review, 22(7), 974–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1740305
74.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860Article101860.
75.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L.VansteenkisteM.SoenensB. (2021). Building a science of motivated persons: Self-determination theory’s empirical approach to human experience and the regulation of behavior. Motivation Science, 7, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000194
76.
ScottP. G. (1994). The effects of accountability, responsiveness, and professionalism on bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision-making [Dissertation/Thesis].
77.
ShimD. C.ParkH. H.EomT. H. (2017). Street-level bureaucrats’ turnover intention: Does public service motivation matter?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315582137
78.
SteffelM.WilliamsE. F.Perrmann-GrahamJ. (2016). Passing the buck: Delegating choices to others to avoid responsibility and blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.04.006
79.
StenderupR. (2024). Bureaucratic sludge: Bureaucratic tasks and procedures leading to experiences of strain. International Journal of Social Welfare, 33(4), 890–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12662
80.
ThomannE.HupeP.SagerF. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12297
81.
TsuiA. S.PearceJ. L.PorterL. W.TripoliA. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does Investment in employees pay off?Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/256928
82.
TuW.GongT. (2022). Accountability intensity and bureaucrats’ response to conflicting expectations: A survey experiment in China. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1779–1801. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1930123
83.
van LoonN. M.VandenabeeleW.LeisinkP. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management, 35(5), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.1061171
84.
YuS. (2024). “Although burdened, do we need to do more?” Street-level bureaucrats’ organizational citizenship behaviors in poverty alleviation policy implementation. Administration & Society, 56(9–10), 1212–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241268163
85.
ZhuZ.LiuY.ZhangN.PengZ. (2023). Motivations underlining the “blame avoidance dilemma”: The effect on street-level bureaucrats during a crisis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 94, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103808
