Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review

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 evidence 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 democratic 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.

Most Americans support minimizing administrative burdens for Medicaid recipients as the public health emergency ends

“…Administrative rules and requirements are a basic component of a modern welfare state around the world, 1 justified as ensuring standardized treatment and minimizing fraud by limiting access to those eligible. 2 However, at times, such requirements may evolve into an unreasonable burden that prevent eligible individuals receiving benefits that they are legally entitled to.…”