A rule is divisive when its legitimacy is contested and divisive rules are an enduring theme of public administration research. For over three decades, this research has been shaped by red tape theory, which conceptualizes divisive rules as those which consume an organization's resources but fail to advance its goals. Recently, however, the administrative burden framework, which prioritizes the impact of divisive rules on citizens and links their origins to political motives, has grown in popularity. We take stock of the last decade of research on red tape and administrative burden using the meta-narrative review methodology. We identify five narratives within the two research traditions and discuss their distinct research questions, theoretical mechanisms, privileged actors, and rule assumptions, as well as their strengths, limitations, and practical implications. These insights are leveraged to analyze the origins, impact, and ontology of divisive public sector rules. We also raise research questions with cross-cutting relevance to the red tape and administrative burden research traditions. Evidence for Practice• The design and quality of public sector rules have far-reaching consequences for policy makers, public servants, and citizens. • In the 1990s, the red tape research agenda linked rule quality with the administrative values of effectiveness and efficiency. Within the last decade, administrative burden research has highlighted the fundamentally political nature of some public sector rules. • Practitioners should assess their issue of concern and identify and draw from the most relevant of the five distinct but inter-related red tape and administrative burden research themes, namely, administrative performance, behavioral impact, rule quality, impact on citizen access to public services and benefits, and administrative system politicization. • Integrating the insights of the red tape and administrative burden research traditions can produce a more complete picture of public sector rules that is relevant to both scholars and practitioners.
Artikkelen tar for seg hvordan juridisk kjønn er regulert i norsk rett etter innføringen av lov om endring av juridisk kjønn i 2016. I forbindelse med den nye loven ble det anbefalt å utrede et tredje juridisk kjønnsalternativ. En slik utredning har foreløpig uteblitt. Artikkelen drøfter hva et tredje juridisk kjønnsalternativ innebaerer, og om et slikt alternativ bør innføres i norsk rett. Artikkelen gir et saerlig kritisk blikk på inkonsistente forhold mellom den nye loven om endring av juridisk kjønn og diskrimineringsvernet på grunnlag av kjønnsidentitet som følger av diskrimineringsloven om seksuell orientering, kjønnsidentitet og kjønnsuttrykk fra 2013. NØKKELORD juridisk kjønn, kjønnsidentitet, diskrimineringsvern, trans-og intersexpersoner ABSTRACT This article examines how the term «legal gender» is regulated in Norwegian law after the Norwegian Act on Legal Gender Change was enacted in 2016. In particular, consideration is given to the possibility of adopting a third legal gender option in Norwegian law, something that was a subject of discussion during consideration of the new Act, but not incorporated within the final provision. Contemplated is the possible content and legal effects of a third legal gender option. The article also critically analyses the inconsistent relationship in Norwegian law between the Act on Legal Gender Change and the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.