Burdens, Sludge, Ordeals, Red tape, Oh My!: A User's Guide to the Study of Frictions

Abstract

Recent years has seen dramatic growth to the study of frictions that individuals experience, especially in their interactions with the public sector, creating both the potential for new research opportunities and conceptual confusion. We seek to head off the latter by providing, in one place, a definition, description of the development, and comparison of four dominant conceptions of frictions: ordeal mechanisms, red tape, administrative burden, and sludge. In particular, we discuss the four concepts' definition and use in terms of their objectivity, distributive effects, object and domain, and deliberate design. The paper helps researchers to understand the overlap and distinctions between these concepts, and the role of public administration in these different traditions. Comparisons of the different approaches' thinking also suggest opportunities for mutual learning.

Sludge and transaction costs

“…However, it might very well be the case that the same sludge also leads to benefits for the individual, for the choice architect, or for society as a whole [e.g., as discussed in the context of self-control problems by Soman et al (2010) and program integrity by Sunstein and Gosset (2020)]. But whether sludge leads to net benefits or net costs, all aspects considered is irrelevant 15 There are more links between the literature on sludge and the literature on public administration as reviewed by Madsen et al (2021). Their article compares sludge with three other forms of friction: administrative burden (e.g., Burden et al, 2012), red tape (e.g., Bozeman, 2000;Bozeman, 2012), and ordeals (e.g., Nichols & Zeckhauser, 1982).…”

“…We deviate from this perspective on sludge and suggest that sludge must lead to experienced costs to be defined as sludge. The article by Madsen et al (2021) additionally discusses distributiveness, the object and the domain of frictions, and intentionality as other dimensions on which sludge can be compared with administrative burden, red tape, and ordeals.…”

“…More precisely, and in line with Dahlman's three types of transaction costs, we differentiate between sludge as aspects of the choice architecture that lead to the experience of (1) search costs, (2) evaluation costs, and (3) implementation costs. 19 We also add a fourth type of cost to account for the emotional consequences of sludge: (4) the As discussed in Madsen et al (2021), some subfields in the public administration literature suggest that frictions can be overall welfare-enhancing (e.g., when administration is onerous but also useful to identify whether somebody is eligible for a service). Other subliteratures in that field suggest that frictions are always welfare-reducing (e.g., some definitions of red tape assume that there are no benefits to red tape).…”

“…Madsen et al (2021) discuss more distributional issues related to the effects of friction as dealt with in the literatures on sludge, administrative burden, red tape, and ordeals.…”

Administrative Burden Symposium: Introduction – Are we ‘administering inequality’ through our welfare systems?

“…A significant point of difference from other administrative burden research is Cook's analysis is the way in which state support systems can be leveraged by others (in this case aggrieved fathers) to inflict financial and psychological harms on their ex-partners. Typically, we think of burdens as costs imposed on individuals by the state (though they might also arise in non-state interactions, see Madsen et al, 2020). Cook presents a different scenario, where the state operates as a referee, framing a policy and imposing rules, but where the burdens are often driven by individuals, including those who once maintained intimate relationships and often retain ongoing family structures.…”