Administrative Burden

PA — 2026-08-20 Original Face‐to‐Face With Administrative Burdens: Design Simplification, Emotional Costs, and Procedural Outcomes in Digital Welfare Applications Fabian Hattke, Judith Hattke, David Hensel, Pamela Herd, Janne Kalucza, Donald P. Moynihan, Rick Vogel

PAR — 2026-08-19 Original To Add Insult to Injury: Exploring the Impact of Policy Inequity on Administrative Burden Yongzheng Yang, Qingqing Zhang, Peng Liu

JPART — 2026-07-28 Original Institutionalized enforcement of administrative compliance: state regulator use of noncompliance burdens Mingxu (Emma) Li, Daniel L Fay Abstract Abstract Administrative burden scholarship typically examines rules and regulations affecting access to public benefits during initial citizen–state interactions. Scholars agree that individual burdens function as “hidden politics” because policy changes during implementation through bureaucratic discretion. Less is known about bureaucratic behavior or hidden politics enforced on third-party service providers maintaining compliance. In this article, we address this by examining noncompliance burdens imposed on abortion providers to understand if regulators emulate peers’ behavior. Using an institutional theoretical framework and administrative records from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (FAHCA) on abortion provider oversight, we construct a directed dyadic event history model using 1540 dyad-year observations to predict isomorphism or divergence of sanction activities across regulatory field offices. We find that regulatory field offices emulate behavior of others based on peer’s previous sanction behavior and oversight workload. We also find that regulators diverge from peers based on the regulatory conditions of their own jurisdiction.

JPART — 2026-06-05 Original Awareness, costs, and take-up of social benefits: evidence from a field experiment in China Wenchi Wei, Xin Chen, Xing Ni

PA — 2026-06-01 Original A Replication of “Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape” Huaxing Liu, Cheng Huo, Ben Ma, Qing Huang, Z C Zhang

PAR — 2026-05-26 Original Context, Mechanism, and Outcome: Explaining Gendered Administrative Burdens on Abortion Access in Italy Debra Lanfranconi, Markus Hinterleitner Abstract ABSTRACT Abortion access in Italy provides a case to examine how gendered administrative burdens emerge through the interplay of legal provisions, informal frontline practices, and contextual influences. Drawing on the Context–Mechanism–Outcome framework from realist evaluation, the analysis shows how legal access to abortion is constrained by procedural requirements, widespread conscientious objection among healthcare providers, and the institutional presence of anti‐abortion actors. Using qualitative data from Obiezione Respinta— a user‐generated platform mapping abortion access barriers across Italy—we demonstrate how everyday bureaucratic processes (re)produce gender inequalities. Three contributions follow. First, the analysis extends the gendered administrative burden literature by highlighting how informal policy design and contextual factors contribute to gender inequality. Second, it introduces the C‐M‐O framework to administrative burden research as a structured yet parsimonious approach to studying how burdens emerge. Third, it centers on women's experiences to offer a qualitative account of how burdens are perceived and navigated.

PA — 2026-05-12 Original Fairness Perception, Administrative Burden, and Social Welfare Participation Yongdong Shen, Wenchi Wei, Chao An, Zhouyi Chen Abstract ABSTRACT This study examines whether and how fairness perception and administration burden relate to citizen participation in social welfare programs. We theoretically argue that both participation costs and citizens' perceptions of distributive fairness play critical roles in determining individuals' willingness to engage with welfare programs. We further propose that compliance burden (costs) may constrain frontline officials' discretion in benefit allocation, thereby reinforcing perceptions of fairness and encouraging program participation. Using a nationally representative sample from the China Urban and Rural Low‐Income Household Survey, we find that perceived unfairness is negatively associated with welfare participation, and administrative burdens constitute substantial barriers to access. Moreover, compliance burden weakens the negative correlation between perceived unfairness and welfare participation, suggesting that rigid procedures are linked with stronger perceptions of distributive fairness and institutional trust. These findings underscore the complex interplay between procedural design and citizen perceptions in shaping welfare participation in China.

PMR — pp. 1-25 2026-05-11 Original Do third parties matter for citizens’ public programme participation? Evidence from an administrative burden perspective

PMR — pp. 1-36 2026-03-30 Original Citizens’ engagement in coproduction through digital platforms: a survey experiment study in China Ninghui Li, Yanwei Li Abstract This study examines how administrative burden and transparency affect citizens’ willingness to engage in coproduction via digital platforms. In a preregistered vignette experiment, we find that lower administrative burden significantly increases participation, while digital transparency independently promotes engagement. Their interaction is insignificant, suggesting that the two factors operate through separate rather than synergistic mechanisms. These findings advance research on administrative burden, transparency, and digital governance by clarifying how platform design can encourage citizens’ coproduction.

PSJ 54/3 2026-03-06 Original Education and the Unequal Costs of Voting: Administrative Burdens and Democratic Participation Cameron J. Arnzen Abstract ABSTRACT Administrative burdens are an inherent feature of citizen–state interactions, shaping who can access public programs and exercise fundamental rights. These burdens are not distributed evenly; instead, they tend to exacerbate inequality by imposing disproportionate costs on individuals with fewer resources or skills. Given that some administrative burdens exacerbate complexity, this paper investigates an understudied dimension upon which burdens may have disproportionate impacts: education. Using the case of U.S. elections, this paper explores how administrative burdens interact with education to shape democratic participation. Drawing on validated voter data from the Cooperative Election Study (2008–2024) linked with the Cost of Voting Index, I show that increases in the administrative complexity of voting disproportionately deter participation among individuals with less education. By highlighting education as a critical but understudied dimension of inequality in navigating burdens, this study demonstrates how the design of onerous public policies, such as election laws, can systematically advantage some citizens over others.