Administrative Burden Revisited: Advancing Research and Practice

Abstract

Studying bureaucratic pathologies has long been central to public administration (e.g., Bozeman, 1993). Recently, administrative burden has gained traction among academics and practitioners (Daigneault, Defacqz, et al., 2024; Halling & Baekgaard, 2023; Madsen et al., 2022). Administrative burden refers to “an individual's experience of policy implementation as onerous” (Burden et al., 2012, 741). The concept is intuitive and covers various costs arising from citizen-state interactions (Christensen et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2015): learning costs when searching for and acquiring information about programs and services (e.g., eligibility rules) and assessing their relevance; compliance costs when fulfilling rules and requirements (e.g., completing forms), and; psychological costs (e.g., stigma, loss of autonomy, frustration, stress). Two recent additions complete these categories: redemption costs, a subset of learning costs, refer to challenges in using benefits, such as SNAP or WIC recipients struggling to identify eligible products or participating stores (Barnes, 2020); and correction costs, linked to resolving administrative errors, such as identifying and addressing issues with authorities (Holler et al., 2024; Schmidt et al., 2023; Widlak & Peeters, 2020).

The administrative burden framework provides unique insights into citizen-state interactions. First, it focuses on citizens—broadly defined—rather than businesses or public employees (Halling & Baekgaard, 2023; Herd & Moynihan, 2018; Madsen et al., 2022). Second, unlike red tape (see Bozeman, 1993), it emphasizes subjective experiences rather than objective frictions like rules and regulations (Baekgaard & Tankink, 2022; Daigneault, 2024; Madsen & Mikkelsen, 2022). Third, it posits that burdens, whether intentional or not, are constructed by public officials (Herd & Moynihan, 2018; Peeters, 2020). Many burdens stem from rules and organizational operations, suggesting they can be reduced through improved program design and burden reduction policies (Benish et al., 2023). Fourth, the framework highlights negative effects on citizens, including non-take-up and political disenfranchisement, though some scholars point to benefits like fair and efficient delivery and skill development (Baekgaard & Tankink, 2022; Herd & Moynihan, 2018; Holler et al., 2024; Nisar & Masood, 2023). Fifth, it underscores the unequal distribution of burdens, with certain individuals disproportionately affected by burden-laden programs, differential treatment within these programs, or limited resources to overcome burdens (Herd et al., 2023).

This state-of-the-art review explores emerging research directions, based on key and cutting-edge studies, while highlighting the limited Canadian literature on administrative burden. It reviews three main domains of the literature (Baekgaard & Tankink, 2022; Christensen et al., 2020): (1) the causes of burdens (i.e., state actions, including burden reduction efforts targeting state actions), (2) individual experiences (i.e., costs and their interaction with individual characteristics), and (3) citizen outcomes (e.g., non-take-up), identifies new directions for research on individual experiences and citizen outcomes, and offers an assessment of the likelihood of making progress.

In this article, I reviewed central and emerging work on administrative burden and outlined nine new directions for research and practice. Academically, the field is vibrant, and I am confident scholars will rise to the challenges discussed.

However, I am less optimistic about practitioners' side, despite Canada's public service being known for professionalism and competence. As Herd et al. (2023, p. 14) noted, “bureaucracies are not naturally inclined to detect and minimize burden.” They often create new rules and suffer from bureaucratic proceduralism, goal displacement and inertia, hindering burden reduction efforts (Herd et al., 2023; Robson, 2024). Public organizations also operate in politically charged environments, facing scrutiny from elected officials, the media, and the public, fostering blame avoidance rather than innovation. Savoie (2024) highlighted a lack of outcome accountability in Canada's federal public service, reinforced by an “unwritten code” that discourages internal criticism. Robson (2024) also noted that political leaders often lack the information needed to fully understand proceduralism and burdens or to empower public servants to take risks in addressing them.

Despite these challenges, reducing administrative burdens and improving citizens' interactions with government services must become a central policy priority—one that is essential for ensuring more efficient, equitable, and effective public service delivery.