Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Abstract

Research indicates that administrative burden influences the behaviors and views of clients and potential clients of government programs. However, administrative burden may also shape mass attitudes toward government programs. Taking a behavioral public administration approach, the authors consider whether and how exposure to information about administrative burden embedded within eligibility-based programs influences citizen favorability toward those programs. It is hypothesized that if information about the existing screening mechanisms is highlighted and made salient, this will lead to greater approval of eligibility-based programs. This expectation is evaluated using a survey experiment that explores administrative burden in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The evidence shows that being exposed to information about administrative burden increases favorability toward TANF and its recipients, though these effects are conditional on party identification. The results provide insight into a potential consequence of administrative burden, showing the way in which information regarding burden can shape citizens' support for eligibility-based programs. Evidence for Practice• Public managers in social welfare programs face challenges in gaining public support because of the stigma associated with these programs. • The evidence suggests that giving the public information about program screening improves views toward welfare programs. • Increasing awareness about program screening processes may be beneficial. However, public officials should consider potential trade-offs, such as discouraging applications. Susan M. Miller is associate professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. Broadly, her research explores the consequences of institutional and program design for policy implementation and outcomes.

When Are Nudges Desirable? Benefit Validity When Preferences Are Not Consistently Revealed

“…An example of the former is the estimation of smokers’ willingness to pay for the elimination of tobacco addiction to identify cigarette demand in the absence of addiction (Weimer, Vining, and Thomas ); an example of the latter is the estimation of households’ willingness to pay to continue to receive HERs to estimate households’ net costs of achieving energy savings (Allcott and Kessler ). This line of research may benefit from the general increase in survey research capabilities among researchers, especially those who study behavioral public administration (see, e.g., Hollibaugh, Miles, and Newswander ; Keiser and Miller ), as well as within administrative agencies that routinely survey those who receive their services. However, stated preference methods require special attention to the challenges of reliability eliciting willingness to pay, especially in light of the cognitive limitations and biases of respondents.…”

“…Additionally, as these biases also appear to be relevant to public perceptions of performance (Marvel ; Walker et al ), they may have efficiency impacts beyond human resource management. They may also have political impacts: although reducing the red tape for participation in welfare programs may reduce barriers to access (Christensen et al ), it may also reduce public support for those programs (Keiser and Miller ).…”

Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape

“…DeHart‐Davis () has pointed out that public managers need to invest time in explaining the purpose of a given rule in order to enhance cooperative rule behavior by citizens. Likewise, Keiser and Miller () have evidenced how attitudes toward welfare programs improve when providing information about the program to the public. However, given the similarity of emotional responses to treatments with and without information, it might rather depend on how public servants convey the message of purpose.…”

Why Public Employees Rebel: Guerrilla Government in the Public Sector

“…In a broader sense, the articles in this symposium point to meaningful avenues for future research in BPA. The manner in which rules are communicated (Hattke, Hensel, and Lalucza ), the amount of administrative burden they place on recipients of program benefits (Keiser and Miller ), and recipients' levels of cognitive resources (Christensen et al ) influence public evaluations of the legitimacy and value of public programs and policies. It is likely that public employees engage in similar processes when evaluating directives from their superiors.…”

“…As other articles in this symposium (e.g., Christensen et al ; Hattke, Hensel, and Laucza ; Keiser and Miller ; Linos and Riesch ) illustrate, the scope of possible behavioral microfoundations is quite broad, and to address all possible ones is beyond the scope of any single article. To begin the process of parsing out administrative behavior, we focus on O'Leary's insights into how guerrilla government action is processed through bureaucratic politics, ethics, and organization and management.…”