Muad 023

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2024, 34, 180–195

https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023
Advance access publication 3 October 2023
Article

Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions:

A Systematic Literature Review
Aske Halling, Martin Baekgaard
Aarhus University, Denmark
Address correspondence to the author at [email protected].
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Abstract
Based on a systematic review of 119 articles and working papers, we provide an overview of how administrative burdens in citizen–state
interactions have been studied since the inception of the research agenda in 2012. We develop a new and comprehensive model of how key
concepts in the framework are related, assess the evidence of the causal relationships proposed by the model, and discuss where more ev-
idence is needed. Empirical research supports conventional claims that burdens are consequential, distributive, and constructed. However,
the literature has moved further by (1) demonstrating that factors such as frontline service delivery and government communication influence
experiences of burdens; (2) highlighting how factors beyond ideology influence constructions of burdens; (3) introducing the burden tolerance
concept; (4) illustrating that experiences of burden influence policymakers’ and members of the publics’ burden tolerance. Based on the review,
we propose an agenda for future administrative burden research. We call for studies linking experiences of burden to outcomes such as demo-
cratic behavior and take-up, and for studies connecting policymakers’ burden tolerance to actual state actions. Moreover, we argue that future
studies should use qualitative methods to further explore the nature of burdens from the perspective of citizens, rely on experimental methods
to establish causal links between state actions and experiences of burden, and compare burdens across contexts. Further, empirical studies
should examine the tradeoffs between legitimacy and experiences of burden, and how actors outside the citizen–state interaction may influence
experiences of administrative burden.
Introduction some focus on individuals’ subjective perceptions, and some

Administrative burden is defined as an individual’s experiences focus on individual outcomes, such as take-up of benefits or
of policy implementation as onerous (Burden et al. 2012). health (Baekgaard and Tankink 2022). Moreover, research
The concept thus emphasizes the experiences of individuals foci differ. Some studies focus on understanding individual
and how state actions, in the form of policies and how they experiences and outcomes and how negative experiences and
are implemented in practice, influence said experiences outcomes can be reduced, while others focus on why policies
(Baekgaard and Tankink 2022). In principle, the definition and practices associated with burdensome experiences are
applies to any individual subject to policy implementation enacted by policymakers or how they are implemented at the
(Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022, 7–8), but the con- frontline.
cept has particularly been used in the context of citizen–state To take stock of the current state of administrative burden
interactions (Jakobsen et al. 2016). research and to better connect empirical knowledge and re-
Building on research traditions on, among others, take-up search questions in current research, we conduct a systematic
of policies and benefits (Bhargava and Manoli 2015; Currie review of 119 published articles and working papers focusing
2006), policy feedback (Moynihan and Soss 2014; Soss on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. We
1999), street-level bureaucracy (Brodkin and Majmundar limit our sample to papers specifically claiming to draw on
2010; Lipsky 1980), and red tape (Bozeman and Youtie 2020) this framework, that is, studies published between the incep-
that all draw attention to onerous experiences with the state, tion of the concept and framework in Burden et al. (2012)
administrative burden has been showcased as an important and Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) and the beginning
concept to create an overarching framework to understand of 2023. To ensure reproducibility and transparency, we
such experiences. follow the widely used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items
However, we lack a comprehensive overview of how the for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Page
field has studied administrative burden since the introduc- et al. 2021).
tion of the concept in the seminal articles by Burden et al. There have been a number of theoretical and conceptual
(2012) and Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015), and how articles and literature reviews about administrative burdens
various research questions relate to one another. Even though (Baekgaard and Tankink 2022; Campbell, Pandey, and
the standard definition of administrative burden points to Arnesen 2022; Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022;
individual experiences, scholars in practice refer to different Peeters 2020). However, none of these articles have systemat-
phenomena when studying administrative burden. Some ically covered all studies on the topic or taken up the task of
focus on actions made by the state (i.e., “objective” burdens), connecting different streams of administrative burden research
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the
original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@
oup.com
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2024, Vol. 34, No. 2 181
in a theoretical model. Our systematic review therefore makes is only interested in the impact of experiences. Rather, the
two contributions to administrative burden research. literature makes three key claims about burdens (Herd and
The first contribution is theoretical. Using a qualitative Moynihan 2018; Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015) re-
coding of the articles and papers included in our review, we garding what the state does, how citizens experience the
build a theoretical model of how key concepts in the admin- actions of the state, individual differences in said experiences,
istrative burden causally relate to each other. This model is and the consequences of burdensome experiences. Figure 1
based partly on theoretical arguments in the literature, partly summarizes the claims in a simplified model (see Baekgaard
on empirical evidence, and seeks to connect studies of very and Tankink 2022; Christensen et al. 2020; Herd and
different research questions within administrative burden re- Moynihan 2018 for similar models).
search to create a coherent theoretical framework. The aim is First, burdens are consequential. The impact of burdens is
not to make a parsimonious theoretical claim but rather to likely to extend beyond people’s experiences and influence
construct a model of the many antecedents, moderators, and outcomes such as civic and electoral participation, health,
potential consequences of administrative burden experiences and take-up of benefits. This claim is rooted very much in
identified in this literature. literatures on policy feedback, benefit take-up, and applied
The second contribution is an overview of how adminis- economics. These research traditions empirically demon-

trative burdens in citizen–state interactions have been studied strate that aspects of what the state does may have impor-
to date. We describe the methodological and contextual char- tant impacts for the mobilization of citizens (e.g., Bruch,
acteristics of the studies included in the review and connect Ferree, and Soss 2010; Soss 1999), the extent to which target
key concepts in the administrative burden framework to groups take up services and benefits for which they are eli-
identify areas of inquiry where substantial progress has been gible (e.g., Currie 2006), and the long-run health of citizens
made and to point to areas where future studies could best enrolled in welfare programs (e.g., Hoynes, Schanzenbach,
be directed. and Almond 2016). However, they do less to explore people’s
The next section briefly discusses the concept of admin- subjective experiences of burden. In this respect, the adminis-
istrative burden and key causal claims in the administrative trative burden framework contributes to previous streams of
burden literature. In the methods section, we describe our research by creating a language for the mechanisms linking
literature search, criteria for including studies in the review, state actions to outcomes.
and how studies were coded and analyzed. This is followed Second, burdens have distributive consequences and are
by our qualitative analysis of the literature. We start out by likely to fall harder on those with fewer resources in the form
presenting a model based on the review and then classify the of human and administrative capital (Christensen et al. 2020;
evidence for seven causal claims in the model. The article Masood and Nisar 2021), administrative literacy (Döring
concludes with a discussion of limitations and proposals for a 2021), and bureaucratic self-efficacy (Bisgaard 2023). Third,
future research agenda. while some burdensome state actions are likely unintended
(Peeters and Widlak 2023), or the result of unconscious
biases (Olsen, Kyhse-Andersen, and Moynihan 2020), other
Key Claims in Administrative Burden Research state actions are constructed and the result of deliberate po-
Administrative burden refers to the learning, compliance, and litical and administrative decisions, that is, politicians or
psychological costs experienced by citizens when interacting bureaucrats prefer to introduce burdens to, for instance, limit
with the state (Herd and Moynihan 2018). Learning costs are fraud in public programs (Moynihan, Herd, and Ribgy 2016).
the costs of learning about rights, rules, and demands associ- Thus, the literature relies on a broad understanding of the
ated with interacting with the state (Barnes and Riel 2022). relevant domain of inquiry. This domain is not limited to
For instance, an individual eligible for the TANF program the study of experiences and outcomes among citizens and
in the United States has to be aware that the program exists target groups. As per the third causal claim above, it also
and how to apply for the benefits. Compliance costs are the encompasses decisions and rationales for decisions made by
costs of complying with specific rules in interactions with the elected politicians, administrators, and frontline personnel. In
state. In the TANF example, the applicant has to fill out an our review, we therefore rely on a broad understanding of the
application form and demonstrate eligibility. For the unem- domain of administrative burden in citizen–state interactions
ployed, compliance costs may manifest as the costs of having where studies are relevant whenever the subject matter has to
to show up for meetings at public offices to demonstrate an do with a state arrangement introducing burden for citizens.
active search for work and of updating CVs on a regular basis The studies may focus either on decisions made by politicians
(Baekgaard et al. 2021; Madsen nda). Finally, psychological or bureaucrats or on the consequences of such decisions for
costs have to do with the mental discomfort of interacting citizens. In our analysis of the literature, we seek to develop
with the government (Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020). the model presented in figure 1 further by reviewing the em-
For instance, interactions associated with uncertainty may pirical findings in existing studies.
lead to experiences of stress, loss of autonomy, or even stigma
(Cecchini nd).
By emphasizing the subjective costs experienced by citizens Methods
and explicitly referring to individual experiences in the defi- We adhere to the PRISMA guidelines when conducting
nition of the concept (Burden et al. 2012), the administrative our systematic literature review (Page et al. 2021). These
burden literature makes a key distinction between what the guidelines were developed to ensure that literature reviews
state does (sometimes called barriers, frictions, state actions, are comprehensive, transparent, and well documented to
or state constructions of burdens) and what the individual minimize reporting biases and ensure reproducibility. The
experiences. However, this does not mean that the literature PRISMA checklist is available in the appendix. Below we
182 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Figure 1. Key Claims in the Administrative Burden Literature.
describe the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review as the review still includes studies where elected politicians
well as our search and coding strategy. and frontline personnel were asked about the imposition of
burdens on individuals outside the organization. Thus, the re-
Eligibility Criteria view applies a broad understanding of citizens as individuals
Our focus is on administrative burdens in citizen–state and organizations outside the formal organizational hier-
interactions. The main inclusion criterion is that studies archy of the state in a given case.
use the conceptual framework formulated by Burden et al. The remaining inclusion criteria are more straight-
(2012), Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015), and Herd and forward. We are interested in all English-language peer-
Moynihan (2018), that is, refer explicitly to administra- reviewed publications and working papers from 2012 until
tive burden and/or learning, compliance, and psychological our data collection closed in February 2023.1 We set the
costs. Other streams of literature in economics, sociology, start to 2012, because this is when Burden et al. (2012)
political science, and public administration also deal with wrote their seminal article that introduced and defined the
frictions in interactions between citizens and government. term “administrative burdens.” Table 1 gives an overview of
This includes, but is not limited to, literatures on red tape, the eligibility criteria.
sludge, ordeals, take-up of government benefits, street-level
bureaucracy, and policy feedback (Baekgaard and Tankink
Literature Search
2022; Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022). However,
as administrative burden has developed into a sizeable To identify peer-reviewed journal articles, we searched all
subfield of its own, which in several aspects differs from re- journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index using Web of
lated research in other disciplines (Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Science. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for “ad-
Moynihan 2022), it is important to take stock of the current ministrative burden,” “psychological cost,” “compliance
state of this particular field and explore what the literature cost,” “learning cost,” and derivatives of these terms. We lim-
has taught us so far. ited our search to English-language articles. We also searched
The second inclusion criterion is that studies focus on ad- 12 leading public administration journals (see list of journals
ministrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. This means in appendix table A1) using the same terms. We then screened
that we exclude studies that use the administrative burden titles and abstracts and then full papers to identify all papers
framework but focus either on companies (Petersen, Hansen, that passed our eligibility criteria. Finally, we screened the lit-
and Houlberg 2022), third-party organizations (Carey et al. erature list of all eligible journal articles for missing records.
2020), or on the costs experienced by public employees in In total, we identified 100 peer-reviewed journal articles for
their interactions with the organization where they are em- the systematic literature review.
ployed (Bozeman and Youtie 2020; Linos and Riesch 2020; To obtain a comprehensive pool of working papers, we
Sievert, Vogel, and Feeney 2020). We make this decision be- created a list of all authors who contributed at least two arti-
cause our goal is to understand how, why, and when citizens cles to the literature review (see appendix table A2). We then
experience burdens in their interactions with the state. In contacted all authors on the list and asked them to provide
comparison, studies on public employees burdened by work any unpublished, full-length papers on administrative burdens
routines focus on internal organizational affairs rather than
a bureaucratic relationship between the state and individual
outside the formal organizational hierarchy. Also, burdens 1
As the only exception, we excluded Herd and Moynihan (2018) from the
review. The main points in this book have been covered in several journal
among public employees have been studied extensively in articles by the authors and including it would therefore introduce the risk of
the red tape literature (George et al. 2020). Nevertheless, double-counting arguments.
Table 1. Overview of Eligibility Criteria
Characteristic Eligibility Criteria
Topic Studies that use the conceptual framework of administrative burden research.
Studies that focus on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions.
Language English.
Publication status Peer-reviewed publications and full-length working papers.
Year of publication Studies published between 2012 and February 13, 2023, and unpublished working papers from this period.
Research field Public administration and other fields.
Article type Theoretical and empirical articles.
that they had (co-)authored. We also encouraged them to let framework and therefore do not meet the eligibility criteria.
us know if they knew of other working papers on the topic. Two of these publications (Brodkin and Majmundar 2010;

Almost all authors replied within a few days and most sent Lipsky 1980) concern street-level bureaucracy, and the third
one or more working papers. Moreover, we made a call for (Bhargava and Manoli 2015) focuses on take-up of benefits.
working papers through our Twitter accounts and a similar Thus, while there certainly are some widely cited works out-
call through a listserv for scholars interested in administrative side the narrow domain of administrative burden research, the
burden research managed by Professor Donald Moynihan. field is generally dominated by internal references, suggesting
Based on these steps, we collected 19 eligible working pa- that administrative burden research indeed constitutes a dis-
pers.2 In total, 119 papers are included in the review (see the tinct field of its own.
full list of papers in appendix table A7). Figure 2 summarizes A related question is how well studies with different foci,
the selection process. research questions, and methodologies speak to one another.
We conducted a bibliographical network analysis (Perianes-
Coding Strategy Rodriguez, Waltman, and van Eck 2016) in which we explored
We relied on two strategies for coding the articles. First, we citation patterns between articles. As shown in appendix table
systematically coded several facts about the articles (year A4, assortativity scores are generally low, suggesting that ar-
of publication, whether empirical material was collected, ticles tend to cite each other to an almost equal extent despite
methods used, country covered by empirical analysis, policy different methodologies and research questions (Newman
area, and type of subjects) using a closed coding strategy (see 2003). Overall, the analysis suggests that the field is coherent
appendix table A3 for a full description of coding criteria). in the sense that even the most different parts of the field tend
We present this information in the first part of the results sec- to rely on each other’s work.
tion to give an overview of the field and the types of studies
conducted. Methodological Characteristics
Second, we used an open coding where we focused on core Of the 119 collected articles, 75% are empirical papers using
concepts covered in the articles and types of causal relations qualitative or quantitative analysis of data, while 25% are
covered in the papers. This is a demanding task that requires theoretical papers, literature reviews, or case studies. Articles
that coders have in-depth knowledge of the literature. We are published in 35 different journals. Most are published
therefore handled all coding ourselves and met several times in public administration journals, but some are published in
during the coding process to ensure consistency in the cate- either health, economics, or political science journals. The
gorization of relationships and concepts. We use the qual- most frequent appearances are in Public Administration
itative coding to summarize current knowledge about the Review with 17, Journal of Public Administration Research
different relationships shown in figure 1 and to extend the and Theory with 16, and Journal of Behavioral Public
causal model based on the findings and arguments in extant Administration with 11 articles (see appendix table A5 for
research. full details). Figure 3 shows a timeline of all published papers
on the topic. Only nine were published between 2012 and
2017, but the publication trend changed significantly in 2018.
Characteristics of Studies on Administrative From 2018 to 2021, the number of yearly published papers
Burden almost doubled each year from 5 in 2018 to 36 in 2021.
Citation Analysis While 2022 saw a decline in publications to 20, the overall
This first part of the analysis covers key characteristics of the trend still indicates that the study of administrative burden
articles on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. has established itself as a sizeable subfield within public ad-
Related to the discussion of eligibility criteria, we initially ministration research.
explore whether studies frequently cited by our 119 eligible Figure 4 graphs methodological characteristics of the
studies are missing in the review. Table 2 shows that among studies. Panel A shows that more than half the empirical
the top 10 most cited papers and publications in the review, studies use quantitative methods. However, a substantial
three publications do not rely on the administrative burden number of articles employ qualitative methods or case
studies, meaning the field is characterized by some meth-
odological diversity. This is also evident from panel D,
Many of the working papers were later published. The initial number of
2 where we divide the quantitative and qualitative categories
working papers was 30. into more specific subcategories. We see that studies on

Figure 2. Selection Process.
Table 2. Top 10 Most Cited Publications by the 119 Papers Included in

the Systematic Review
Publication Number of Citations from

Studies in the Review
Herd and Moynihan (2018) 93

Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) 86
Burden et al. (2012) 59
Heinrich (2016) 59
Christensen et al. (2020) 58
Herd et al. (2013) 48
Lipsky (1980) 48
Brodkin and Majmundar (2010) 47
Figure 3. Publication Timeline.
Nisar (2018) 42 Note: n = 100. The figure shows the year studies were made available
Bhargava and Manoli (2015) 34 online and does not include working papers.

Figure 4. Methodological Characteristics of Empirical Studies.
Note: Figures A-E display various charatersitics of empirical studies. Articles that fit into more than one category are coded into all relevant categories.
Purely theoretical articles are not included in any of the figures.
administrative burdens use a great variety of methods, and officials and street-level bureaucrats.” This leads us to distin-
that studies utilize both observational and experimental guish between formal (arrow 1) and informal policy designs
data to a high extent. Studies are also relatively diverse (arrow 2). While formal policy design refers to the laws and
when it comes to the origin of data, as our review includes rules enacted by politicians, that is, the rules that people will
studies from all six inhabited continents. However, studies have to abide to get access to services and benefits, informal
from Western countries dominate the literature, as 82% policy design concerns how these rules are implemented at the
of all studies were conducted in either the United States, frontline and communicated more broadly. This allows us to
Europe, or Australia (see panel B). We also coded whether discuss how different aspects of policies lead to experiences
papers used data from more than one country. Only three of administrative burdens. Second, the model extends the
papers used data do so, and neither of them used a com- number of factors explaining state actions beyond political
parative approach where they compared burdens across ideology by introducing the concepts of burden support and
contexts. Panel D shows that almost half of the studies focus burden tolerance, that is, “the willingness of policymakers and
on target group members. This aligns well with the fact that people more generally to passively allow or actively impose
one purpose of the administrative burden framework is to state actions that result in others experiencing administrative
draw attention to individuals’ experiences of policy imple- burdens” (Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021, 184).
mentation (Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015). Finally, As shown, support and tolerance for burdens may sometimes
panel E shows that around 50% of all studies focused on be influenced by the content of state actions when people be-
means-tested welfare benefits. This may reflect that means- come aware of actual rules and implementation (arrow 6b).
tested programs are often where citizens encounter the most Third, the model proposes that other factors than political
requirements and therefore are likely to experience various ideology and beliefs may influence burden tolerance and state
burdens when interacting with the state. actions. In particular, the model highlights the importance of
target group deservingness, personal experience, and bureau-
cratic processes (arrow 7). Fourth, the model proposes feed-
Qualitative Analysis of Key Causal back effects of citizens’ experiences of burden on how burdens
Relationships are constructed by the state and how tolerant policymakers
This section presents the results of our qualitative anal- and others are of burdens to begin with (arrows 5a and 5b).
ysis of the literature. Figure 5 provides an overview of our Table 3 lists the number of studies that cover each rela-
main findings. This model extends the theoretical model in tionship. Below, we discuss each of the seven arrows in figure
figure 1 in four important respects. First, it proposes a more 5. Our aim is not to mention all studies discussing each
nuanced understanding of what state actions are. In line with specific arrow but rather to summarize current knowledge
Baekgaard and Tankink (2022, 17), we understand state about each relationship. Our discussion therefore only covers
actions broadly to cover what the state does “including laws, selected articles that provide knowledge on the relationship
rules, requirements, and how such are implemented by public under discussion. Appendix table A6 is an extended version

Figure 5. Extended Model of Causal Claims.
of table 3 and shows the articles that provide knowledge on of the mechanisms linking state actions to experiences.
each relationship. Also, when it comes to understanding the costs of dealing
with different state actions, qualitative methods have major
advantages over other methods. With a few exceptions (Ali
Arrow 1: Formal Policy Design → Experiences of and Altaf 2021; Baekgaard and Madsen 2023), most papers
Burden indeed use qualitative methods to study the relationship be-
With few exceptions, studies find that state barriers are as- tween barriers and learning and compliance costs, while no
sociated with experiences of learning and compliance costs. papers use experimental methods. This is not surprising, as it
Learning costs, for instance, arise when being subject to is often hard to manipulate barriers or state actions. However,
requirements (Cook 2021), misinformation (Chudnovsky in addition to more qualitative research, the literature would
and Peeters 2021a), and having to deal with vouchers (Barnes benefit from studies that are able to causally link state actions
2021), while compliance costs arise because of transportation to experiences of learning and compliance costs. As mentioned
time to vaccinator camps (Ali and Altaf 2021) and completing in the next section, a few studies document how state actions
forms (Yates et al. 2022). Some studies find that learning causally influence experiences of psychological costs, showing
and compliance costs arise as a consequence of (eligibility) that it is possible to causally study the link between state
requirements in means-tested welfare programs (Holler and actions and experiences of administrative burdens.
Tarshish 2022) and insurance programs (Yates et al. 2022). There are 50% more studies on the relationship between
Other studies find that learning and compliance costs also formal policy designs and psychological costs than on the
arise in settings such as the restoration of voting rights (Selin comparable relationship with learning and compliance costs
2019), digital government services (Madsen, Lindgren, and discussed above, illustrating that this relationship has received
Melin 2022), and accessing vaccinations (Ali and Altaf 2021). high scholarly attention. The general finding from the 16
Studies are conducted in diverse contexts such as Pakistan, studies discussing this topic is that state actions are associated
Denmark, the United States, and Argentina, suggesting there with various forms of psychological costs. Examples of psy-
is some universality to the claim that interacting with the state chological costs arising from state actions are autonomy loss
is associated with experiences of learning and compliance and stress (Baekgaard et al. 2021), frustration (Cook 2021),
costs. However, one paper finds that having a scheduled com- stigma (Selin 2019; Thomsen, Baekgaard, and Jensen 2020),
pulsory meeting with frontline workers causes no changes in externalization of locus of control (Madsen and Mikkelsen
compliance costs and is associated with experiences of less 2022), uncertainty (Cecchini nd) and confusion, anger, and
learning costs (Baekgaard and Madsen 2023). Another study frustration (Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020).
finds that digital self-service solutions have the potential Studies fall in two methodological categories: qualitative
to both increase and reduce learning and compliance costs studies and experiments. Qualitative studies provide in-depth
(Madsen, Lindgren, and Melin 2022). knowledge about how state actions may lead to psychological
This suggests that more research is needed on how dif- costs. One example is Yates et al.’s (2022) study of burdens in
ferent types of state actions reduce and impose experiences Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. One inter-
of learning and compliance costs. Such studies could build on viewee mentions that it was “wearing” and “soul destroying”
more qualitative approaches to obtain a better understanding “to be constantly questioned about, are you disabled enough”
Table 3. Number of Papers Studying Each Causal Relationship
Relationship Number of Papers
Arrow 1: Formal policy design → experiences of 21

burden State actions → learning costs 11
State actions → compliance costs 11
State actions → psychological costs 16
Arrow 2: Informal policy design → experiences of 18
burden Frontline service delivery 8
Government communication 10
Arrow 3: Distributive effects 31
Citizen factors 24
State characteristics 7

Arrow 4: Experiences of burden → outcomes 5
Arrow 5: Experiences of burden → burden tolerance 4
and state actions
Arrow 6: The relationship between burden tolerance 2
and state actions Arrow 6a: Burden tolerance → state actions 0
Arrow 6b: State actions → burden tolerance 2
Arrow 7: Factors influencing burden tolerance and 21
state actions Arrow 7a: Factors influencing state actions 14
Arrow 7b: Factor influencing burden tolerance 7
(p. 5), showing how eligibility requirements can create psy- the administrative burden framework show that workload
chological costs. matters for experiences of administrative burden. For in-
Experimental studies establish causal links between stance, Bell and Meyer (nd) use administrative data from
barriers and costs. Baekgaard et al. (2021) use survey- and college financial aid programs to show that decreases in work-
field-experimental evidence to show that reductions in state load lead to an increase in program access for low-income
compliance demands reduce stress and increase the sense of students and that the increase is highest among students who
autonomy among target group members. Hattke, Hensel, have been subject to discrimination based on their race. Ali
and Kalucza (2020) and Hattke et al. (nd) rely on labora- and Altaf (2021) show that citizens experience more burdens
tory experiments to show how redundant documentation in areas with lower administrative capacity, while others find
requirements and simple administrative processes can cause that stress and burnout (Mikkelsen, Madsen, and Baekgaard
confusion, frustration, and anger. 2023) and red tape (Madsen ndb) among frontline workers
In general, the link between state actions and psycholog- are associated with experiences of burden among their clients.
ical costs is relatively well covered in the literature. However, The behavior of frontline workers also matters for citi-
studies so far have generally examined only one or a few state zens’ experiences. Bell and Smith (2022) show that frontline
actions. There is a lack of studies that compare effects of dif- workers who adopt a support role rather than a role as “com-
ferent actions on psychological costs. Such studies could pro- pliance officer” are more likely to use their discretionary
vide valuable knowledge on which state actions translate into power to help students overcome administrative burdens.
psychological costs. In a similar vein, Halling’s (nd) results suggest that frontline
workers help citizens overcome burdens by circumventing
Arrow 2: Informal Policy Design → Experiences of rules. Finally, Barnes and Henly’s (2018) qualitative analysis
Burden shows that clients tend to blame their experiences of adminis-
Informal policy design has to do with the actions by the state trative burden on frontline employees.
that do not directly refer to the formal rules and requirements
as decided by policymakers but rather how these are Government Communication
processed and communicated to citizens. Two aspects of in- Another part of informal policy design that has received con-
formal policy design are particularly prevalent in research on siderable attention is how communication from the state
administrative burden: frontline service delivery and govern- affects individuals’ experiences of administrative burden.
ment communication. All these papers rely on field experiments with randomized
exposure to different forms of government communication.
Frontline Service Delivery Linos et al. (2022) show that disadvantaged groups prefer
It is no surprise that the delivery of services at the frontline postcards over a telephone hotline to seek information about
of public organizations matters for experiences of burden. free dental care. They use focus groups to show that this is
Lipsky (1980) alluded to this, and subsequent work has likely explained by lower psychological costs associated with
explored this question without explicitly using the concept postcards as participants fear uncomfortable interactions
of administrative burden (e.g., Brodkin and Majmundar with bureaucrats. Moynihan et al. (2022) show how the
2010; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011). Studies applying framing of state categories matters for selecting into the right
categories and that a more intuitive presentation of informa- Frakt 2021; Yates et al. 2022), individuals with low or no
tion increased the number of claimants providing adequate education (Chudnovsky and Peeters 2021b; Collie et al.
documentation. Simplified communication (Linos, Reddy, 2021; Kyle and Frakt 2021), and those suffering from sick-
and Rothstein 2022), destigmatizing language (Lasky-Fink ness and disabilities (Bell et al. 2022; Collie et al. 2021; Kyle
and Linos 2023), early communication (Linos, Quan, and and Frakt 2021) experience more administrative burdens as
Kirkman 2020), postcards (Hock et al. 2021), letters (Bhanot a result of state actions.
2021), and text messages (Lopoo, Heflin, and Boskovski Relatedly, a few studies discuss how citizens’ attitudes
2020) can also improve take-up. and expectations might influence how citizens engage with
Altogether, these field experiments show that different the state and hence lead to different impacts of state actions
forms of nudges can be effective in increasing take-up of on experiences of burden. These attitudes and expectations
benefits among eligible individuals. Apart from the two first- may themselves stem from a variety of sources including
mentioned studies, the studies do not measure experiences prior interactions with the state (Chudnovsky and Peters
of burden directly. Instead, they measure different outcomes 2021b, 531), thus suggesting a potential feedback effect from
while theorizing that the link between communication and outcomes on attitudes and expectations (see also Moynihan
outcomes has to do with experiences of burden. Hence, there and Soss 2014).3

is a need for studies that show that reduction of administra- Finally, a last stream of studies considers how individuals’
tive burdens is the process through which these nudges work. access to relevant third parties, actors outside the citizen–state
interaction that provide help to citizens or otherwise influ-
Arrow 3: Distributive Effects ence interactions (Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015), may
The argument that administrative burdens are distributive affect their experiences of administrative burden. A few pa-
and can foster inequality is at the core of the administra- pers explore the role of such actors. Barnes (2021, nd) shows
tive burden framework (Christensen et al. 2020; Herd and that retailers play a crucial role in shaping compliance costs
Moynihan 2018). Thirty-one papers contribute knowledge on in voucher programs such as WIC. Because citizens must re-
the distributional consequences of state actions. Differences deem their vouchers in retail stores, retailers play a huge role
in resources, attitudes, and expectations between citizens con- in shaping how easy redemption is. Concrete examples are
stitute one main type of distributive effects identified in the lit- the degree to which eligible food is marked and displayed and
erature (Christensen et al. 2020; Heinrich 2018; Nisar 2018). whether store personnel are trained in handling vouchers.
The other type, which has received less attention, focuses on NGOs may also contribute to reduced learning and compli-
how characteristics of the state may contribute to different ance costs by helping citizens overcome burdens (Nisar 2018;
experiences of burden among different parts of the popula- Nisar and Masood nd). Finally, (ex-)family members may in-
tion (Griffiths 2021; Peeters, Renteria, and Cejudo nd). We fluence experiences of administrative burden (Nisar 2018).
discuss both types next. Cook (2021) illustrates how ex-partners may directly im-
pose burdens on mothers in the child support benefit system
in Australia. As an example, some fathers limit their child
Citizen Factors
support liabilities or claim that they have already provided
Studies show that possessing administrative literacy (Döring payments to mothers. Each time fathers make such changes
2021; Döring and Madsen 2022), self-efficacy (Thomsen, or claims, mothers are required to respond, which can be as-
Baekgaard, and Jensen 2020), habitus and different forms of sociated with substantial compliance costs.
capital (Carey, Malbon, and Blackwell 2021; Masood and
Nisar 2021) all make state barriers easier to handle, resulting
in fewer experiences of burdens. All these contributions are State Characteristics
important in documenting that possessing the necessary cap- Another possible source of distributive effects is the state it-
ital and skills is key when dealing with onerous state demands. self. A key insight from this stream of research is that varia-
However, there is a considerable overlap between the dif- tions in administrative capacities to reach out to vulnerable
ferent concepts. Apart from self-efficacy, all focus on a type populations may contribute to inequality in the experience
of capital (or literacy) that makes state encounters easier to of burdens. Some studies investigate how individuals may ex-
handle. Some are specific to encounters with the state (ad- perience different burdens in states with different character-
ministrative literacy and capital), while others are more istics. The most prominent characteristic examined so far is
general forms of capital (human capital and Bourdieu’s cap- the extent to which the state is automated and digitalized.
ital concepts). Discussing differences and similarities between Peeters, Renteria, and Cejudo (nd) illustrate how governments
the concepts is beyond the scope of this article, but we note with higher information capacity are better able to “absorb”
that using fewer concepts would strengthen the comparative burdens, which means that citizens face fewer administrative
potential across studies. burdens. Digital government may also create unintentional
Other studies focus on how experiences of burdens are errors that contribute to considerable experiences of admin-
distributed across demographic and non-demographic istrative burden. Griffiths (2021) shows how automation of
characteristics. The general finding is that individuals benefit calculation can create burdensome experiences. For
from marginalized or low-resource groups tend to struggle example, people with irregular pay dates risk missing out
more with state barriers. So far, studies have shown that on benefits for which they are eligible because automation
individuals with low income or who are experiencing processes do not account for irregular cases. Likewise, Widlak
scarce financial resources (Chudnovsky and Peeters 2021b;
Heinrich et al. 2022; Larsson 2021; Madsen, Baekgaard 3
Since this feedback effect is mainly inspired by policy feedback research, for
and Kvist 2022), ethnic minorities (Heinrich 2018; Olsen, the sake of simplicity we chose not to show this as an independent arrow
Kyhse-Andersen, and Moynihan 2020), women (Kyle and in the model.
and Peeters (2020) show that citizens face various adminis- There is also a lack of studies that look beyond take-up and
trative burdens in correcting errors made by the state, while focus on other types of outcomes. In some instances, burdens
Compton et al. (2022) show that blacks and Hispanics are may not discourage people from taking up public services,
disproportionally hit by administrative errors. but they may still affect the adequacy and quality of services
Other state characteristics that may influence experiences provided—in particular when citizens interact with the same
of administrative burdens are material and artificial artifacts public agency for a prolonged period of time (Peeters and
present in physical and virtual government arenas (Nisar and Campos 2021). Furthermore, inspired by the policy feedback
Masood nd) and consistent application of rules (Kaufmann, literature, it has been suggested that experiences of burden
Ingrams, and Jacobs 2021). Finally, Johnson and Kroll (2021) may affect civic capacities such as political efficacy, trust in
theorize but find no supporting empirical evidence that repre- institutions, and civic engagement (Christensen et al. 2020).
sentative government and shared identities between frontline However, no studies have so far examined these questions
employees and citizens may decrease experiences of burden. systematically.
Arrow 4: Experiences of Burden → Outcomes Arrow 5: Feedback Effects: Experiences → Burden

Tolerance and State Actions

According to Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015), adminis-
trative burdens are an important part of governance, “since While state actions are expected to trigger experiences of
they affect whether citizens succeed in accessing services burdens in the original theoretical model, a few studies sug-
(did I get what I want), whether public polices succeed (did gest a feedback effect, that is, experiences may influence
a program reach the targeted group?), and the perceptions of burden tolerance and state actions. The argument is that
government (was I treated fairly and with respect?)” (p. 43). knowledge about experiences may make policymakers and
However, despite the obvious importance of studying the link others understand the detrimental effects of state actions
between experiences of burden and various outcomes, only and hence induce less burden. This proposition finds mixed
Daigneault and Macé (2020) have done so among published support in the three studies dealing with the question. In a
papers. Based on interviews with target group members, they survey-experimental study of Danish local politicians using
show that individuals experiencing compliance and learning a treatment cue about psychological costs experienced by
costs are less likely to take up Quebec’s Supplement to the target group members, Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen
Work Premium program. Other papers study the link between (2021) find no evidence of a feedback effect. Conversely,
state actions and outcomes but without subjective measures in a survey experiment, Halling and Petersen (nd) find that
of people’s experiences of administrative burden. Notable Danish frontline employees are more likely to reduce com-
examples are Heinrich (2016) and Jenkins and Nguyen (2022), pliance demands in the implementation process and to help
who convincingly, and with strong causal traction, show that citizens who communicate psychological costs. Sievert and
various state actions influence take-up of welfare programs and Bruder (2023) find mixed support in their study of the feed-
might even impact long-term outcomes such as risky behaviors back effects of treatments increasing awareness of learning
in adolescence (Heinrich 2016; Heinrich and Brill 2015). These and compliance, costs among German citizens. While there
studies contribute important knowledge on how state actions is some evidence of feedback effects of compliance costs,
influence take-up of welfare benefits but not on the relationship exposing participants to information about learning costs
between subjective experiences of burden and outcomes. does not affect burden tolerance. Finally, Gilad and Assouline
Several working papers show that experiences of burden (2022) do not study feedback effects directly, but rather a
are associated with behaviors that can lead to reduced pro- prerequisite of their existence, namely citizens voicing their
gram take-up, such as compliance and autonomous mo- experiences of burden. They find that citizens indeed voice
tivation (Madsen nda), making errors on forms (Hattke et their experiences to authorities but also that disadvantaged
al. nd), and filing complaints (Bell et al. 2022). While these groups are less inclined to do so.
papers make valuable contributions, none of them study ac- On balance, there is a need for much more research to
tual outcomes but rather behaviors that are likely to influence establish the relevance of feedback effects. Such studies
take-up of benefits. The final working paper by Lasky-Fink could investigate differences between groups of respondents
and Linos (2023) offers a promising approach to dealing (policymakers, frontline workers, citizens). They may also
with some of the shortcomings of other research on this rela- focus on the way in which information about experiences of
tionship. Contrary to the other working papers, the authors burden is provided. Here, a distinction could be made between
study actual take-up of welfare benefits and show that statistical and episodic information. Previous research has
destigmatized language leads to substantially higher take-up identified stronger effects of episodic data in other contexts
rates. Moreover, contrary to studies linking state actions and (Olsen 2017). Finally, studies could examine feedback effects
take-up, the authors go one step further and use three survey from citizen outcomes.
experiments to make it probable that the mechanism linking
state actions and take-up is psychological costs in the form of Arrow 6: The Relationship Between Burden
perceived stigma. In doing so, the working paper studies the Tolerance and State Actions
whole causal chain from barriers over subjective experiences The literature on burden tolerance presumes that toler-
of administrative burdens to outcomes. This is a model for ance among political decision-makers and the mass public
future studies to pursue because such studies will be able to influences the extent to which the state constructs burdens
show not only whether individuals experience burdens as (e.g., Aarøe et al. 2021; Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen
a result of state actions, but also the extent to which these 2021; Keiser and Miller 2020; Nicholson-Crotty, Miller,
burdens subsequently influence service use or other relevant and Keiser 2021). However, none of the studies in the re-
outcomes. view study the causal influence of burden tolerance on state
actions, likely due to challenges obtaining causal estimates. and Moynihan 2022), while big five personality traits in the
Nevertheless, we indicate this relationship in figure 5 with a form of conscientiousness and openness to experiences have
dashed line (arrow 6a) due to the strong theoretical expecta- been shown to correlate with burden tolerance in the study of
tion that burden tolerance influences the extent to which the Aarøe et al. (2021).
state introduces burdens in public policies. Fourth, studies of factors explaining variation in barriers
Alternatively, it is possible that knowledge about existing find bureaucratic processes are likely to shape the barriers
barriers influences the extent to which people are supportive that citizens meet when interacting with the state. These
of burdensome barriers (arrow 6b). Two empirical studies studies are primarily based on discussions of specific exem-
examine this question using survey experiments among the plary cases. Peeters (2020) points out that barriers are likely
mass public. Keiser and Miller (2020) find that information to be unintentional in many cases. They can, for instance, be
about the presence of barriers increases support for welfare a result of very complex cases that make it impossible to ease
programs and their recipients, in particular among conserva- application processes for citizens by means of automation
tive voters. Nicholson-Crotty, Miller, and Keiser (2021) show (Larsson 2021), or they can be unintended results of large-
that information about barriers has heterogeneous effects on scale digitalization and automated decision-making processes
program approval depending on whether the target group where citizens who do not fit into predefined boxes face

is perceived as deserving (information about more barriers barriers in the implementation process (Peeters and Widlak
reduces approval) or undeserving (information about barriers 2018, 2023). Other studies show that bureaucratic low-trust
has no significant effect). While the two studies support the culture and inertia may increase barriers that citizens face
idea that information about state actions may influence when interacting with government (Bashir and Nisar 2020;
burden tolerance, there is certainly room for more research Peeters et al. 2018).
about how state actions may influence burden tolerance in the
mass public and among decision-makers. Such studies may
for instance investigate how state actions are constructed in Setting an Agenda for Future Research
popular debates. Before we move on to the discussion of next steps to be taken,
we note three limitations of our study. The first is publication
Arrow 7: Factors Shaping Burden Tolerance and bias. While we approached the field to include unpublished
State Actions research, it is possible that some unpublished null findings
This section looks into other factors that shape burden tol- have not been included or that published null findings did
erance and state actions. A total of seven studies examine not show up in our literature search because publications
factors shaping burden support, while 13 studies investigate with null findings on administrative burden hypotheses have
factors shaping state actions. We deal with the questions been framed into other literatures. While we consider this
jointly, because many of the key explanations are similar for a lesser concern given our extensive strategy for collecting
burden tolerance and state actions. Overall, explanations can studies, publication bias may have made evidence appear
be divided into four broad categories. stronger than it is. The second limitation has to do with the
First, a series of studies present evidence that burdens are qualitative coding of studies. While we adhere to stringent
constructed and that political ideological beliefs influence coding criteria and have conducted multiple rounds of cross-
the extent to which barriers are introduced. For instance, the validating the coding, categorizing studies based on the kind
studies by Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015), Moynihan, of relationships they study is—at least for some studies—a
Herd, and Ribgy (2016), and Heinrich (2018) find that more matter of nuance and assessment. Third, the quality of the in-
barriers are introduced in states governed by conservatives cluded studies is likely to vary, meaning that our review may
than in states governed by liberals. Likewise, a series of not give an accurate picture of the strength of evidence for the
cross-sectional studies find strong correlations between the many propositions studied in administrative burden research.
ideological beliefs of politicians (Baekgaard, Moynihan, and While we have confidence in the general pattern of how dif-
Thomsen 2021), street-level bureaucrats (Bell et al. 2020), ferent relationships have been covered, others may disagree
and the mass public (Haeder, Sylvester, and Callaghan 2021; with our coding of some studies and with the strength of evi-
Halling, Herd, and Moynihan 2022) and their support for dence presented in these studies.
administrative burden policies. Limitations aside, our review points out where evidence
Second, in accordance with the claim by Schneider and is missing and suggests steps to be taken in future research.
Ingram (1993) that target group construction matters to the Next, we discuss which parts of our theoretical model war-
benefits and burdens assigned to each group, target group de- rant more empirical evidence before finishing with a discus-
servingness and minority status appear to be of major impor- sion of new questions for future research to pursue.
tance to both burden tolerance (Baekgaard, Moynihan, and
Thomsen 2021; Haeder, Sylvester, and Callaghan 2021) and More Evidence Needed
barriers (Jilke, Van Dooren, and Rys 2018). Our review points to several issues that should get more at-
Third, a series of individual-specific explanations of burden tention in future research. First, our understanding of people’s
tolerance have been investigated in the literature. Most experiences is very much based on the deductive categoriza-
factors have not been theorized very clearly, however, and tion of experiences as learning, compliance, and psycholog-
have only been the subject in few empirical studies. Personal ical costs developed in Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015).
experience with benefits has been shown to be associated with While this has laid the foundation for important research,
less tolerance for burdensome state actions among Danish future research could do more to supplement it with bot-
local politicians (Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomse 2021) tom-up qualitative research of what burdens are from the
and a representative sample of US citizens (Halling, Herd, perspectives of those interacting with the state. Such research
could also aid our understanding of what constitutes more literature. An important part of the framework formulated
important types of burdensome experiences and under what by Herd and Moynihan (2018) is that burdens are not inher-
circumstances they arise. A good example of this kind of re- ently bad, and that they often serve legitimate purposes of
search is the work of Barnes (2021, nd). protecting program integrity and avoiding fraud. While the
Second, it is a core claim of the administrative burden issue of burden legitimacy has received some theoretical at-
framework that what the state does is consequential for citi- tention (Doughty and Baehler 2020), empirical scholarship
zens’ experiences. Providing solid causal evidence about this has yet to engage with it. One important question is how
relationship is therefore a key point for future research. Future policymakers and citizens form preferences regarding program
studies could for instance rely on laboratory experiments in- integrity vis à vis target group members’ onerous experiences.
spired by the studies by Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020 Studies on burden tolerance touch upon this question, but do
and Hattke et al. (nd). Another way forward may be to embed not tackle it directly. Another question is how policymakers
surveys and in-depth interviews as part of randomized field legitimize the existence of administrative burdens. Do they
experiments to explore how changes in state action influ- emphasize fraud protection, budget concerns, targeting the
ence experiences and in turn outcomes. Here, the study by most deserving individuals, or something else? A third ques-
Lasky-Fink and Linos (2023) may also serve as an example tion that should get more attention is how actors outside the

to follow, as the authors combined their field experiment with citizen–state interaction shape experiences of administrative
survey experimental evidence to explore whether the impact burdens. A few studies show that various third parties such
of destigmatized language on take-up indeed was mediated as NGOs and family members can influence experiences of
by reduced perceived stigma as hypothesized by the authors. burden, but the roles of these actors still warrant more atten-
Third, most studies examining this link are conducted tion. Further, civil society and the media may influence cit-
among recipients of various social welfare benefits. However, izens’ experiences. For example, target group members are
experiences of burden are likely to arise in other types of often negatively portrayed in the media (Baekgaard, Herd,
interactions with the state as is evident from studies of, among and Moynihan 2022; Schneider and Ingram 1993), which
others, digital government services (Madsen, Lindgren, and could increase their experiences of burden.
Melin 2022) and voting rights (Herd and Moynihan 2018,
43–70; Selin 2019). To better understand the scope and im-
portance of administrative burden, there is a need for studies Conclusion
that move beyond social welfare to investigate experiences
of burdens in areas such as law enforcement, taxation, and The administrative burden literature, while surprisingly
regulation. clearly demarcated from other fields of research, has devel-
Fourth, research on how experiences of administrative oped into a thematically and methodologically diverse re-
burden affect outcomes such as welfare take-up, trust in gov- search field within few years. Overall, our systematic review
ernment, health, and voting behavior is scarce. Most of the demonstrates that empirical research in the field generally
articles that study outcomes (primarily take-up) examine supports the original three-fold claim made by Moynihan,
how they relate to state actions and not to experiences of Herd, and Harvey (2015) that burdens are consequential,
burden. To get a more comprehensive picture of how burden- constructed, and fall harder on groups with few resources.
some encounters influence citizens’ lives, we encourage future Yet, the review also demonstrates that the literature has
studies to examine the link between experiences of burden moved past these claims in important ways. Based on our
and outcomes. reading and coding of 119 articles and working papers, we
Fifth, the advancement of the burden tolerance concept build a comprehensive model of causal claims in the litera-
allows researchers to examine the extent to which individuals ture. The model illustrates different relationships that have
support barriers. An important assumption is that the burden been explored in the still nascent literature on administrative
tolerance of policymakers and bureaucrats shapes the ac- burdens, and it highlights several new theoretical insights
tual design of state actions, but it has never been empirically gained since the founding work of Moynihan, Herd, and
examined. Doing so would help ascertain whether burden tol- Harvey (2015). First, experiences of administrative burdens
erance is consequential for the actual design of polices. are sometimes unrelated to how burdens are constructed by
Sixth, the administrative burden literature is diverse in the state and instead rely on other factors such as frontline
terms of methods, policy areas, and subjects. Most studies service delivery, government communication, unintended
are conducted in Western countries, but there are studies actions, and third parties. Second, the model highlights that
of burdens from other contexts such as Pakistan and Latin factors beyond political ideology may affect the construction
America. However, there is a general lack of comparative of state actions by introducing the concept of burden toler-
studies of burdens across countries and across policies, which ance. Third, the model shows that factors such as personal ex-
would be valuable in terms of providing knowledge on the perience with programs, personality traits, and the structure
extent to which context matters for experiences of burden. of bureaucratic processes affect individuals’ burden tolerance.
Likewise, comparative studies of barriers or across policy Finally, the model illustrates a potential feedback effect of cit-
areas could elucidate which types of state actions are most izens’ experiences of administrative burden on policymakers’
likely to produce experiences of burdens. burden tolerance.
Our systematic coverage of the administrative burden lit-
erature offers promising avenues for new research. First, we
New Questions to Pursue call for studies that causally link state actions and experiences
While we have presented a quite extensive model based on of administrative burden, for studies that link experiences
current administrative burden studies, there are still impor- of burden to outcomes such as democratic behavior and
tant questions that have received little to no attention in the take-up, and for studies that connect policymakers’ burden
tolerance to actual state actions. Methodologically, we call target group members. Journal of Public Administration Research
for in-depth qualitative studies of how burdens are experi- and Theory 31 (4): 806–21.
enced by people taking part in citizen–state interactions and Baekgaard, Martin, Donald P. Moynihan, and Mette Kjaergaard
comparative studies. Last, we argue that important questions Thomsen. 2021. Why do policymakers support administrative
burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and per-
remain unexplored. One topic that future research should ad-
sonal experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and
dress is how policymakers, bureaucrats, and members of the Theory 31 (1): 184–200.
public balance the legitimacy of public policies against target Baekgaard, Martin, and Tara Tankink. 2022. Administrative burden:
group members’ experiences of administrative burden. Is it Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti. Perspectives on Public
acceptable to enhance experiences of administrative burdens Management and Governance 5 (1): 16–21.
to avoid fraud or to target the right populations? Another Barnes, Carolyn. nd. Decoupling policy and practice: The redemption
topic that warrants more attention is how actors outside the costs of WIC. Working Paper.
citizen–state interaction shape experiences of administra- Barnes, Carolyn, and Virginia Riel. 2022. “I don’t know nothing about
tive burden. For example, we know that welfare recipients that”: How “learning costs” undermine COVID-related efforts to
are often negatively constructed in the media and society make SNAP and WIC more accessible. Administration & Society
54 (10): 1902–30.
(Baekgaard, Herd, and Moynihan 2022; Schneider and
Barnes, Carolyn Y. 2021. “It takes a while to get used to”: The costs

Ingram 1993), yet we have limited knowledge about whether of redeeming public benefits. Journal of Public Administration Re-
this leads to them experiencing administrative burdens to a search and Theory 31 (2): 295–310.
larger extent when interacting with the state. Barnes, Carolyn Y., and Julia R. Henly. 2018. ‘They are underpaid and
understaffed’: How clients interpret encounters with street-level
bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and The-
Supplementary Material ory 28 (2): 456–456.
Supplementary data is available at the Journal of Public Bashir, Mohsin, and Muhammed Azfar Nisar. 2020. Expectation versus
Administration Research and Theory online. reality: Political expediency and implementation of information to
information laws. Public Administration Quarterly 44 (1): 3–30.
Bell, Elizabeth, Julian Christensen, Pamela Herd, and Donald P. Moy-
Acknowledgment nihan. 2022. Health in citizen-state interactions: How physical and
mental health problems shape experiences of administrative bur-
We thank Arne Hørlück Høeg for providing excellent research den and reduce take-up. The American Review of Public Adminis-
assistance. We are also thankful for the great comments we tration 83 (2): 385–400.
received from participants at the Administrative Burden pre- Bell, Elizabeth, and Katharine Meyer. nd. Can reducing workload en-
conference workshop at the 2022 PMRC. hance equity at the front-lines? How street-level bureaucrats’ capac-
ity impacts access to burdensome public programs. Working Paper.
Bell, Elizabeth, and Kylie Smith. 2022. Working within a system of ad-
Funding ministrative burden: How street-level bureaucrats’ role perceptions
This work was supported by funding from the European shape access to the promise of higher education. Administration &
Society 54 (2): 167–211.
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon
Bell, Elizabeth, Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan, Wesley Wehde, and Kylie Smith.
2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 2020. Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level
802244). bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden. Public Admin-
istration Review 81 (4): 610–24.
Bhanot, Syon P. 2021. Good for you or good for us? A field experiment
Data Availability on motivating citizen behavior change. Journal of Behavioral Pub-
lic Administration 4 (1): 1–14.
No new data were generated or analyzed in support of this Bhargava, Saurabh, and Dayanand Manoli. 2015. Psychological
research. frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: Evidence
from an IRS field experiment. American Economic Review 105
(11): 3489–529.
References Bisgaard, Mette. 2023. Dealing with bureaucracy: measuring citizens’
Aarøe, Lene, Martin Baekgaard, Julian Christensen, and Donald P. Moy- bureaucratic self-efficacy. International Review of Public Adminis-
nihan. 2021. Personality and public administration: Policymaker tration 28 (1): 45–63.
tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services. Public Ad- Bozeman, Barry, and Jan Youtie. 2020. Robotic bureaucracy: Adminis-
ministration Review 81 (4): 652–63. trative burden and red tape in university research. Public Adminis-
Ali, Sameen A. Mohsin, and Samia W. Altaf. 2021. Citizen trust, ad- tration Review 80 (1): 157–62.
ministrative capacity and administrative burden in Pakistan’s im- Brodkin, Evelyn Z., and Malay Majmundar. 2010. Administrative exclu-
munization program. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration sion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Jour-
4 (1): 1–17. nal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (4): 827–48.
Baekgaard, Martin, Pamela Herd, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2022. Of Bruch, Sarah K., Myra Marx Ferree, and Joe Soss. 2010. From policy
“Welfare Queens” and “Poor Carinas” social constructions, deserv- to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disad-
ingness messaging, and the mental health of welfare clients. British vantaged citizens. American Sociological Review 75 (2): 205–26.
Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 594–612. Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P.
Baekgaard, Martin, and Jonas Krogh Madsen. 2023. Anticipated ad- Moynihan. 2012. The effect of administrative burden on bureau-
ministrative burden: How proximity to upcoming compulsory cratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administra-
meetings affect welfare recipients’ experiences of administrative tion. Public Administration Review 72 (5): 741–51.
burden. Public Administration 1–19. doi: 10.1111/padm.12928 Campbell, Jesse W., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Lars Arnesen. 2022. The
Baekgaard, Martin, Kim Sass Mikkelsen, Jonas Krogh Madsen, and ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A
Julian Christensen. 2021. Reducing compliance demands in gov- meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden
ernment benefit programs improves the psychological well-being of literatures. Public Administration Review 83 (2): 296–315.
Carey, Gemma, Helen Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon, Megan Weier, and Halling, Aske, and Niels Bjørn Grund Petersen. nd. Burden feedback:
Gordon Duff. 2020. Burdensome administration and its risks: When citizens communicate burdens, frontline employees respond
Competing logics in policy implementation. Administration & So- evidence from an experiment. Working Paper.
ciety 52 (9): 1362–81. Hattke, Fabian, Judith Hattke, David Hensel, Pamela Herd, Janne
Carey, Gemma, Eleanor Malbon, and James Blackwell. 2021. Kaluzca, Donald P. Moynihan, and Rick Vogel. nd. Face-to-face
Administering inequality? The national disability insurance scheme with administrative burdens: Physiological measures and behav-
and administrative burdens on individuals. Australian Journal of ioral consequences of psychological costs. Working Paper.
Public Administration 80 (4): 854–72. Hattke, Fabian, David Hensel, and Janne Kalucza. 2020. Emotional
Cecchini, Mathilde. nd. Into the unknown—The administrative burden responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review
of uncertainty in citizen-state interactions. Working Paper. 80 (1): 53–63.
Christensen, Julian, Lene Aarøe, Martin Baekgaard, Pamela Herd, and Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2016. The bite of administrative burden: A theo-
Donald P. Moynihan. 2020. Human capital and administrative bur- retical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administra-
den: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. tion Research and Theory 26 (3): 403–20.
Public Administration Review 80 (1): 127–36. ———. 2018. Presidential address: “A thousand petty fortresses”:
Chudnovsky, Mariana, and Rik Peeters. 2021a. A cascade of exclu- Administrative burden in US immigration policies and its
sion: Administrative burdens and access to citizenship in the case consequences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37 (2):
of Argentina’s National Identity Document. International Review 211–39.

of Administrative Sciences 88 (4): 1068–85. Heinrich, Carolyn J., and Robert Brill. 2015. Stopped in the name
———. 2021b. The unequal distribution of administrative burden: A of the law: Administrative burden and its implications for cash
framework and an illustrative case study for understanding varia- transfer program effectiveness. World Development 72 (August):
tion in people’s experience of burdens. Social Policy and Adminis- 277–95.
tration 55 (4): 527–42. Heinrich, Carolyn J., Sayil Camacho, Kaitlin Binsted, and Shadlan Gale.
Collie, Alex, Luke Sheehan, Ashley McAllister, and Genevieve Grant. 2022. An audit test evaluation of state practices for supporting ac-
2021. The learning, compliance, and psychological costs of cess to and promoting Covid-19 vaccinations. Social Science and
applying for the disability support pension. Australian Journal of Medicine 301: 114880.
Public Administration 80 (4): 873–90. Herd, Pamela, Thomas DeLeire, Hope Harvey, and Donald P. Moy-
Compton, Mallory E., Matthew M. Young, Justin B. Bullock, and nihan. 2013. Shifting administrative burden to the state: The
Robert Greer. 2022. Administrative errors and race: Can technol- case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review 73 (s1):
ogy mitigate inequitable administrative outcomes? Journal of Pub- s69–81.
lic Administration Research and Theory 33: 512–28. Herd, Pamela, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2018. Administrative bur-
Cook, Kay. 2021. Gender, malice, obligation and the state: Separated den: Policymaking by other means, 1st ed. New York: Russell Sage
mothers’ experiences of administrative burdens with Australia’s Foundation.
child support program. Australian Journal of Public Administra- Hock, Heinrich, John T. Jones, Michael Levere, and David Wittenburg.
tion 80 (4): 912–32. 2021. Using behavioral outreach to counteract administrative bur-
Currie, Janet. 2006. The take-up of social benefits. In Public policy and den and encourage take-up of simplified disability payment rules.
the distribution of income, ed. A. J. Auerbach, D. Card, and J. M. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 (1): 1–15.
Quigley, 80–148. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Holler, Roni, and Noam Tarshish. 2022. Administrative burden in
Daigneault, Pierre Marc, and Christian Macé. 2020. Program citizen-state encounters: The role of waiting, communication
awareness, administrative burden, and non-take-up of Québec’s breakdowns and administrative errors. Social Policy and Society:
supplement to the work premium. International Journal of Public 1–18.
Administration 43 (6): 527–39. Hoynes, Hilary, Diane W. Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond. 2016.
Döring, Matthias. 2021. How-to bureaucracy: A concept of citizens’ Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net. American
administrative literacy. Administration & Society 53 (8): 1155–77. Economic Review 106 (4): 903–34.
Döring, Matthias, and Jonas Krogh Madsen. 2022. Mitigating psycho- Jakobsen, Morten, Oliver James, Donald P. Moynihan, and Tina
logical costs—The role of citizens’ administrative literacy and so- Nabatchi. 2016. JPART virtual issue on citizen-state interactions
cial capital. Public Administration Review 82 (4): 671–81. in public administration research. Journal of Public Administration
Doughty, Meghan, and Karen J. Baehler. 2020. “Hostages to compli- Research and Theory 29 (4): e8–15.
ance”: Towards a reasonableness test for administrative burdens. Jenkins, Jade Marcus, and Tutrang Nguyen. 2022. Keeping kids in care:
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 3 (4): 273–87. Reducing administrative burden in state child care development
George, Bert, Sanjay K. Pandey, Bram Steijn, Adelien Decramer, and fund policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Mieke Audenaert. 2020. Red tape, organizational performance and 32 (1): 23–40.
employee outcomes: Meta‐analysis, meta‐regression and research Jilke, Sebastian, Wouter Van Dooren, and Sabine Rys. 2018. Discrimi-
agenda. Public Administration Review 81 (4): 638–51. nation and administrative burden in public service markets: Does
Gilad, Sharon, and Michaela Assouline. 2022. Citizens’ choice to voice a public-private difference exist? Journal of Public Administration
in response to administrative burdens. International Public Man- Research and Theory 28 (3): 423–39.
agement Journal: 1–22. doi:10.1080/10967494.2022.2072988 Johnson, Donavon, and Alexander Kroll. 2021. What makes us toler-
Griffiths, Rita. 2021. Universal credit and automated decision making: ant of administrative burden? Race, representation, and identity.
A case of the digital tail wagging the policy dog? Social Policy and Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 (1): 1–9.
Society: 1–18. Kaufmann, Wesley, Alex Ingrams, and Daan Jacobs. 2021. Being
Haeder, Simon F., Steven M. Sylvester, and Timothy Callaghan. 2021. consistent matters: Experimental evidence on the effect of rule con-
Lingering legacies: Public attitudes about Medicaid beneficiaries sistency on citizen red tape. American Review of Public Adminis-
and work requirements. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law tration 51 (1): 28–39.
46 (2): 305–55. Keiser, Lael R., and Susan M. Miller. 2020. Does administrative bur-
Halling, Aske. nd. Taxing language: Do interpreting fees affect health- den influence public support for government programs? Evidence
care usage? Working Paper. from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review 80 (1):
Halling, Aske, Pamela Herd, and Donald Moynihan. 2022. How diffi- 137–50.
cult should it be? Evidence of burden tolerance from a nationally Kyle, Michael Anne, and Austin B. Frakt. 2021. Patient administrative
representative sample. Public Management Review: 1–20. doi:10.1 burden in the US health care system. Health Services Research 56
080/14719037.2022.2056910 (5): 755–65.
Larsson, Karl Kristian. 2021. Digitization or equality: When govern- Newman, Mark E. J. 2003. Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Re-
ment automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government view 67 (026126): 1–13.
Information Quarterly 38 (1): 101547–10. Nicholson-Crotty, Jill, Susan M. Miller, and Lael R. Keiser. 2021. Ad-
Lasky-Fink, Jessica, and Linos. Elizabeth. 2023. Improving delivery of ministrative burden, social construction, and public support for
the social safety net: The role of stigma. Journal of Public Adminis- government programs. Journal of Behavioral Public Administra-
tration Research and Theory. tion 4 (1): 1–29.
Linos, Elizabeth, Lisa T. Quan, and Elspeth Kirkman. 2020. Nudging Nisar, Muhammad A. 2018. Children of a lesser god: Administrative
early reduces administrative burden: Three field experiments to im- burden and social equity in citizen-state interactions. Journal of
prove code enforcement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage- Public Administration Research and Theory 28 (1): 104–19.
ment 39 (1): 243–65. Nisar, Muhammed A., and Ayesha Masood. nd. Governance by
Linos, Elizabeth, Vikash Reddy, and Jesse Rothstein. 2022. Demystifying artifacts: Theory and evidence on materiality of administrative
college costs: How nudges can and can’t help. Behavioral Public burdens. Working Paper.
Policy: 1–22. Olsen, Asmus Leth. 2017. Human interest or hard numbers?
Linos, Elizabeth, and Nefara Riesch. 2020. Thick red tape and the thin Experiments on citizens’ selection, exposure, and recall of per-
blue line: A field study on reducing administrative burden in police formance information. Public Administration Review 77 (3):
recruitment. Public Administration Review 80 (1): 92–103. 408–20.
Linos, Katerina, Melissa Carlson, Laura Jakli, Nadia Dalma, Isabelle Olsen, Asmus Leth, Jonas Høgh Kyhse-Andersen, and Donald Moy-

Cohen, Afroditi Veloudaki, and Stavros Nikiforos Spyrellis. 2022. nihan. 2020. The unequal distribution of opportunity: A national
How do disadvantaged groups seek information about public serv- audit study of bureaucratic discrimination in primary school ac-
ices? A randomized controlled trial of communication technologies. cess. American Journal of Political Science, Early view version, 66
Public Administration Review 82 (4): 708–20. (3): 587–603.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the in- Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle
dividual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa
Lopoo, Leonard M., Colleen Heflin, and Joseph Boskovski. 2020. Test- Shamseer, et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated
ing behavioral interventions designed to improve on-time SNAP guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71.
recertification. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 3 (2): Peeters, Rik. 2020. The political economy of administrative burdens: A
1–8. theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of
Madsen, Christian Østergaard, Ida Lindgren, and Ulf Melin. 2022. The administrative burden. Administration & Society 52 (4): 566–92.
accidental caseworker—How digital self-service influences citizens’ Peeters, Rik, and Sergio A. Campos. 2021. Taking the bite out of admin-
administrative burden. Government Information Quarterly 39 (1): istrative burdens: How beneficiaries of a Mexican social program
101653. ease administrative burdens in street-level interactions. Govern-
Madsen, Jonas Krogh. nda. Compliant but discouraged? How admin- ance 34 (4): 1001–18.
istrative burden influence unemployment benefit recipients’ job Peeters, Rik, Humberto Trujillo Jimenez, Elizabeth O’Connor, Pascual
search motivation. Working Paper. Ogarrio Rojas, Michele Gonzalez Galindo, and Daniela Morales
———. ndb. Frictions on both sides of the counter? A study of red tape Tenorio. 2018. Low-trust bureaucracy: Understanding the Mexi-
among street-level bureaucrats and administrative burden among can bureaucratic experience. Public Administration and Develop-
their clients. Working Paper. ment 38 (2): 65–74.
Madsen, Jonas Krogh, Martin Baekgaard, and Jon Kvist. 2022. Scarcity Peeters, Rik, César Renteria, and Guillermo M. Cejudo. nd. How in-
and the mindsets of social welfare recipients: Evidence from a field formation capacity shapes administrative burdens: A comparison
experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory of the citizen experience of the COVID-19 vaccination programs
33: 675–87. in the United States, Mexico, and the Netherlands. Working Paper.
Madsen, Jonas Krogh, and Kim Sass Mikkelsen. 2022. How salient Peeters, Rik, and Arjan Widlak. 2018. The digital cage: Administra-
administrative burden affects job seekers’ locus of control and re- tive exclusion through information architecture—The case of the
sponsibility attribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Inter- Dutch civil registry’s master data management system. Government
national Public Management Journal 25 (2): 241–60. Information Quarterly 35: 175–83.
Madsen, Jonas Krogh, Kim Sass Mikkelsen, and Donald P. Moynihan. ———. 2023. Administrative exclusion in the infrastructure-level bu-
2022. Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, oh my! A user’s guide to reaucracy: The case of the Dutch daycare benefit scandal. Public
the study of frictions. Public Administration 100 (2): 375–93. Administration Review 83 (4): 863–877. doi: 10.1111/puar.13615
Masood, Ayesha, and Muhammed Azfar Nisar. 2021. Administrative Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan van Eck.
capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of 2016. Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between
Public Administration Research and Theory 31 (1): 56–72. full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics 10 (4): 1178–95.
Mikkelsen, Kim Sass, Jonas Krogh Madsen, and Martin Baekgaard. Petersen, Ole Helby, Jesper Rosenberg Hansen, and Kurt Houlberg.
2023. Is stress among street level bureaucrats associated with 2022. The administrative burden of doing business with the gov-
experiences of administrative burden among clients? A multilevel ernment: Learning and compliance costs in Business-Government
study of the Danish unemployment sector. Public Administration interactions. Public Administration Review 1–19. doi: 10.1111/
Review 1–13. doi: 10.1111/puar.13673 padm.12904
Moynihan, Donald, Eric Giannella, Pamela Herd, and Julie Sutherland. Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1993. Social construction of target
2022. Matching to categories: Learning and compliance costs in populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Politi-
administrative processes. Journal of Public Administration Re- cal Science Review 87 (2): 334–47.
search and Theory 32 (4): 750–64. Selin, Jennifer L. 2019. The best laid plans: How administrative bur-
Moynihan, Donald, and Joe Soss. 2014. Policy feedback and the politics den complicates voting rights restoration. Missouri Law Review
of administration. Public Administration Review 74 (3): 320–32. 84 (4): 1–38.
Moynihan, Donald P., Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey. 2015. Admin- Sievert, Martin, and Jonas Bruder. 2023. Unpacking the effects of bur-
istrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs densome state actions on citizens’ policy perceptions. Public Ad-
in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Re- ministration 1–21.
search and Theory 25 (1): 43–69. Sievert, Martin, Dominik Vogel, and Mary K. Feeney. 2020. For-
Moynihan, Donald P., Pamela Herd, and Elizabeth Ribgy. 2016. malization and administrative burden as obstacles to employee
Policymaking by other means: Do states use administrative barriers to recruitment: Consequences for the public sector. Review of Public
limit access to Medicaid. Administration & Society 48 (4): 497–524. Personnel Administration 42 (1): 3–30.
Soss, Joe. 1999. Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and Widlak, Arjan, and Rik Peeters. 2020. Administrative errors and the
political action. American Political Science Review 93 (2): 363–80. burden of correction and consequence: How information technol-
Soss, Joe, Richard Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011. The organi- ogy exacerbates the consequences of bureaucratic mistakes for citi-
zation of discipline: From performance management to perversity zens. International Journal of Electronic Governance 12 (1): 1–56.
and punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Yates, Sophie, Gemma Carey, Eleanor Malbon, and Jen Hargrave.
Theory 21: i203–32. 2022. “Faceless monster, secret society”: Women’s experiences
Thomsen, Mette Kjaergaard, Martin Baekgaard, and Ulrich Thy Jensen. navigating the administrative burden of Australia’s National Disa-
2020. The psychological costs of citizen coproduction. Journal of bility Insurance Scheme. Health and Social Care in the Community
Public Administration Research and Theory 30 (4): 656–73. 50 (5): e2308–17.

Muad 023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muad 023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muad 023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2024, 34, 180–195

Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Introduction some focus on individuals’ subjective perceptions, and some

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Table 1. Overview of Eligibility Criteria

Characteristic Eligibility Criteria

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Table 2. Top 10 Most Cited Publications by the 119 Papers Included in

Publication Number of Citations from

Herd and Moynihan (2018) 93

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Table 3. Number of Papers Studying Each Causal Relationship

Relationship Number of Papers

Arrow 1: Formal policy design → experiences of 21

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Arrow 4: Experiences of Burden → Outcomes Arrow 5: Feedback Effects: Experiences → Burden

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/34/2/180/7287903 by guest on 09 May 2024

You might also like