The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures

Abstract

A rule is divisive when its legitimacy is contested and divisive rules are an enduring theme of public administration research. For over three decades, this research has been shaped by red tape theory, which conceptualizes divisive rules as those which consume an organization's resources but fail to advance its goals. Recently, however, the administrative burden framework, which prioritizes the impact of divisive rules on citizens and links their origins to political motives, has grown in popularity. We take stock of the last decade of research on red tape and administrative burden using the meta-narrative review methodology. We identify five narratives within the two research traditions and discuss their distinct research questions, theoretical mechanisms, privileged actors, and rule assumptions, as well as their strengths, limitations, and practical implications. These insights are leveraged to analyze the origins, impact, and ontology of divisive public sector rules. We also raise research questions with cross-cutting relevance to the red tape and administrative burden research traditions. Evidence for Practice• The design and quality of public sector rules have far-reaching consequences for policy makers, public servants, and citizens. • In the 1990s, the red tape research agenda linked rule quality with the administrative values of effectiveness and efficiency. Within the last decade, administrative burden research has highlighted the fundamentally political nature of some public sector rules. • Practitioners should assess their issue of concern and identify and draw from the most relevant of the five distinct but inter-related red tape and administrative burden research themes, namely, administrative performance, behavioral impact, rule quality, impact on citizen access to public services and benefits, and administrative system politicization. • Integrating the insights of the red tape and administrative burden research traditions can produce a more complete picture of public sector rules that is relevant to both scholars and practitioners.

Beyond social equity: Talking social justice in public administration

“…We now return to our focus on equity and social justice with eight research articles and one viewpoint article. First, Campbell et al (Campbell et al, 2023) review the last decade of research on red tape and administrative burden using a meta-narrative review methodology. They identify five narratives within the two research traditions and discuss their distinct research questions, theoretical mechanisms, privileged actors, and rule assumptions.…”

Elevating subjective individual experience in public policy and public administration: Reflections on red tape, administrative burden, and sludge

“…to the dysfunctional work context in the public sector (see Campbell et al, 2023 for a detailed exposition). Administrative burden has emerged as a powerful theoretical framework for connecting public administration scholarship with social policy scholarship.…”

“…Although Bozeman never intended to make this assumption in his 1993 paper, the red tape research program has proceeded as if this assumption holds. Research in both the rule quality and behavioral impact themes in red tape research has called into question the modularity assumption, repeatedly highlighting the explanatory power of non-rule factors in explaining judgments about and responses to red tape (see Campbell et al, 2023). This is not to say that we should not audit organizational rules to make improvements to organizational functioning-there are of course some rules and systems that should be improved, but rather we should not assume that relatively objective assessments of rule functionality are a core feature of the individual experience of red tape.…”

“…Nearly three decades of scholarship on bureaucratic red tape, more than a decade on administrative burden, and nearly 5 years on sludge provide the raw material for reflections in this essay. I draw extensively on my involvement in the red tape research program over the last three decades, especially from the more recent contributions with a reflective bent (e.g., Campbell et al, 2023; Carrigan et al, 2020; George et al, 2021; Pandey, 2021; Pandey et al, 2017). I have watched with admiration, and where possible supported, the growth of other related research programs (on administrative burden and behavioral science) that give serious consideration to the individual experience.…”

Administrative Burden in Citizen-State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The past few years has seen a number of theoretical and conceptual articles and literature reviews about administrative burdens (Baekgaard and Tankink 2022;Campbell, Pandey, and Arnesen 2022;Peeters 2020;Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2020). However, none of these articles have systematically covered all studies on the topic, or taken up the task of connecting the different streams of research in a comprehensive theoretical model.…”