When Are Nudges Desirable? Benefit Validity When Preferences Are Not Consistently Revealed

113

Although red tape has a long history in public administration research, the emotional consequences of bureaucratic procedures for citizens have received little attention in the literature. Within the framework of behavioral public administration, this article investigates how varying conditions of administrative delay, administrative burden, and rule dysfunctionality in citizen-state interactions spark discrete emotional reactions. Physiological measurements of emotions (e.g., facial coding, electrodermal activity, heart rate) from 136 participants in a laboratory study show that bureaucratic red tape evokes significant negative emotional responses, especially confusion, frustration, and anger. Experimental evidence also indicates that delay is less stirring than burden, while rule functionality has little placatory effect, regardless of the favorability of outcomes. These results support the conceptualization of red tape as an affective rather than a cognitive phenomenon. They also suggest that negative emotions of citizens are linked to the modus operandi of public administrations.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape

Hattke

Hensel

Kalucza

2019

113

“…Providing information about administrative burden can “nudge” the public to pay attention to the fact that most social welfare programs already have strong screening processes. Nudges may be a useful tool for public managers (see Battaglio et al ; Kasdan ; Thaler and Sunstein ), though their impacts need to be assessed like other policy alternatives (see Weimer ). The existing marketplace of ideas surrounding social policy is full of anecdotal stories of fraud or individuals that fit negative stereotypes and highlight potential problems with “undeserving” recipients (Gilens ; Henry, Renaya, and Weiner ).…”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Keiser

Miller

2019

Research indicates that administrative burden influences the behaviors and views of clients and potential clients of government programs. However, administrative burden may also shape mass attitudes toward government programs. Taking a behavioral public administration approach, the authors consider whether and how exposure to information about administrative burden embedded within eligibility-based programs influences citizen favorability toward those programs. It is hypothesized that if information about the existing screening mechanisms is highlighted and made salient, this will lead to greater approval of eligibility-based programs. This expectation is evaluated using a survey experiment that explores administrative burden in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The evidence shows that being exposed to information about administrative burden increases favorability toward TANF and its recipients, though these effects are conditional on party identification. The results provide insight into a potential consequence of administrative burden, showing the way in which information regarding burden can shape citizens' support for eligibility-based programs. Evidence for Practice• Public managers in social welfare programs face challenges in gaining public support because of the stigma associated with these programs. • The evidence suggests that giving the public information about program screening improves views toward welfare programs. • Increasing awareness about program screening processes may be beneficial. However, public officials should consider potential trade-offs, such as discouraging applications. Susan M. Miller is associate professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. Broadly, her research explores the consequences of institutional and program design for policy implementation and outcomes.

“…Relatedly, in this symposium, David Weimer () points to harmful addictions (including alcoholism) as an impairment to people's ability to reason about benefits they would experience relative to burdens in choice process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Capital and Administrative Burden: The Role of Cognitive Resources in Citizen‐State Interactions

Christensen

Aarøe

Bækgaard

et al. 2019

234

188

One means by which the state reinforces inequality is by imposing administrative burdens that loom larger for citizens with lower levels of human capital. Integrating insights from various disciplines, this article focuses on one aspect of human capital: cognitive resources. The authors outline a model that explains how burdens and cognitive resources, especially executive functioning, interrelate. The article then presents illustrative examples, highlighting three common life factors-scarcity, health problems, and age-related cognitive decline. These factors create a human capital catch-22, increasing people's likelihood of needing state assistance while simultaneously undermining the cognitive resources required to negotiate the burdens they encounter while seeking such assistance. The result is to reduce access to state benefits and increase inequality. The article concludes by calling for scholars of behavioral public administration and public administration more generally to incorporate more attention to human capital into their research. Evidence for Practice• People's human capital influences how they engage with administrative processes. Groups with lower levels of human capital struggle more with administrative burdens; therefore, they are less likely to access public services. • A citizen-centered approach to public administration implies that policy makers and administrators take account of variation in human capital when making choices about policy design and implementation. • Cognitive resources, including executive functioning, are a form of human capital, which is key to citizens' ability to initiate and master state interactions. • Citizens experiencing scarcity, health problems, and cognitive decline face a catch-22: such common life factors make them more likely to need to engage with the state, but reduce their executive functioning, making them less able to deal with administrative burdens.