Drawing on attentional resource allocation theory and transaction cost theory, this study links street-level bureaucrats’ problem-solving organizational citizenship behaviors with perceived administrative burden. Based on 28 in-depth interviews and 657 survey responses from street-level bureaucrats involved in China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation Policy during 2019 and 2020, the study found positive relationships between problem-solving organizational citizenship behaviors, resource deficiency, bureaucratic control, and perceived administrative burden. Policymakers should be cautious when using control tools and avoid exploiting street-level bureaucrats’ commitment and compassion for clients to ensure effectively policy implementation and reduce administrative burdens on dedicated public servants.
AndreasL.FritzS. (2022). Handbook on the politics of public administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.
2.
BaekgaardM.MoynihanD. P.ThomsenM. K. (2021). Why do policymakers support administrative burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and personal experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa033
3.
BaekgaardM.TankinkT. (2021). Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab027
4.
BelabasW.GerritsL. (2017). Going the extra mile? How street-level bureaucrats deal with the integration of immigrants. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12184
5.
BellE.MeyerK. (2024). Does reducing street-level bureaucrats’ workload enhance equity in program access? Evidence from burdensome college financial aid programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad018
6.
BellE.SmithK. (2022). Working within a system of administrative burden: How street-level bureaucrats’ role perceptions shape access to the promise of higher education. Administration & Society, 54(2), 167–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211027535
7.
BenishA.TarshishN.HollerR.GalJ. (2023). Types of administrative burden reduction strategies: Who, what, and how. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad028
8.
BergeronD. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost?Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585791
9.
BertelliA.RiccucciN.CanterelliP.CuccinielloM.GroseC.JohnP.LinosE.ThomasA.WilliamsM. (2022). The (Missing?) role of institutions in behavioral public administration: A roundtable discourse. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.304
10.
BettencourtL. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2003.12.001
11.
BoglerR.SomechA. (2019). Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 153(8), 784–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1614515
12.
BolinoM. C.HsiungH.-H.HarveyJ.LePineJ. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583
13.
BolinoM. C.KlotzA. C.TurnleyW. H.HarveyJ. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.
14.
BolinoM. C.TurnleyW. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(3), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10954754
15.
BolinoM. C.TurnleyW. H.GilstrapJ. B.SuazoM. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.635
16.
BorryE. L.HendersonA. C. (2020). Patients, protocols, and prosocial behavior: Rule breaking in frontline health care. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019862680
17.
BozemanB. (1993). A theory of government “red tape.”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–304.
18.
BozemanB.YoutieJ. (2020). Robotic bureaucracy: Administrative burden and red tape in university research. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13105
19.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. M. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 233–257.
20.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2012). The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 741–751.
21.
ByrneB. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
22.
CaiC.ShenQ.TangN. (2022). Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street-level bureaucrats from higher-up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1971
23.
CarriganC.PandeyS. K.RyzinG. G. V. (2020). Pursuing consilience: Using behavioral public administration to connect research on bureaucratic red tape, administrative burden, and regulation. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13143
24.
ChangA.BrewerG. A. (2023). Street-level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2191–2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517
25.
ChenZ.EisenbergerR.JohnsonK. M.SucharskiI. L.AselageJ. (2009). Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: Which leads to which?The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.1.119-124
26.
ChiaburuD. S.LorinkovaN. M.Van DyneL. (2013). Employees’ social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influences. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 291–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113476736
27.
ChristensenJ.AarøeL.BaekgaardM.HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13134
28.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
29.
CunninghamS. (2021). Causal inference: The mixtape. Yale University Press.
30.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2023). “I have learned my lesson”: How clients’ trust betrayals shape the future ways in which street-level bureaucrats cope with their clients. Public Administration, 101(1), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12769
31.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022). Playing defence: The impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review, 24(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
32.
de GeusC. J. C.IngramsA.TummersL.PandeyS. K. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13141
33.
DeeryS.RaytonB.WalshJ.KinnieN. (2017). The costs of exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21815
34.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (Vol. 3). Sage.
35.
Dizon-RossE.LoebS.PennerE.RochmesJ. (2019). Stress in boom times: Understanding teachers’ economic anxiety in a high-cost urban district. AERA Open, 5(4), 2332858419879439. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419879439
36.
FarhJ.-L.EarleyP. C.LinS.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421–444. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393733
37.
FarhJ.-L.ZhongC.-B.OrganD. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the people’s republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0051
38.
FaveroN.BullockJ. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu020
39.
FlemingC. J. (2020). Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: The roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1191–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619817
40.
FordJ. K.MacCallumR. C.TaitM. (1986). The Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Review and Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x
41.
GeorgeB.PandeyS. K. (2017). We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17698189
42.
HallingA.BaekgaardM. (2024). Administrative burden in Citizen–State interactions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023
43.
HarveyJ.BolinoM. C.KelemenT. K. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior in the 21st century: How might going the extra mile look different at the start of the new millennium? In Ronald BuckleyM.WheelerA. R.HalbeslebenJ. R. B. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 36, pp. 51–110). Emerald Publishing Limited.
44.
HassanS. (2015). The importance of ethical leadership and personal control in promoting improvement-centered voice among government employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 697–719. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu055
45.
HattkeF. (2020). When the red tape becomes policy: A critical assessment of administrative burdens. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 178–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz025
46.
HeP.PengZ.ZhaoH.EstayC. (2019). How and when compulsory citizenship behavior leads to employee silence: A moderated mediation model based on moral disengagement and supervisor–subordinate guanxi views. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 259–274.
47.
HeinrichC. J. (2016). The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 403–420.
48.
HeinrichC. J. (2018). Presidential address: “A Thousand Petty Fortresses”: Administrative burden in U.S. immigration policies and its consequences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(2), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22046
49.
HeinrichC. J.CamachoS.HendersonS. C.HernándezM.JoshiE. (2022). Consequences of administrative burden for social safety nets that support the healthy development of children. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 41(1), 11–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22324
50.
HerdP.MoynihanD. (2022). Behavior and burdens: Introduction to the symposium on behavioral implications of administrative burden. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.306
51.
HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
52.
HillH. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/mug024
IngramsA. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior in the public and private sectors: A multilevel test of public service motivation and traditional antecedents. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18800372
55.
JilkeS.TummersL. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy002
56.
KanferR.AckermanP. L.MurthaT. C.DugdaleB.NelsonL. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.826
57.
KeiserL. R.SossJ. (1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1133–1156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991852
58.
KlemsdalL.Alm AndreassenT.BreitE. (2022). Resisting or facilitating change? How street-level managers’ situational work contributes to the implementation of public reforms. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32, 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac004
59.
KlotzA. C.BolinoM. C.SongH.StornelliJ. (2018). Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2259
60.
KoopmanJ.RosenC. C.GabrielA. S.PuranikH.JohnsonR. E.FerrisD. L. (2020). Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12354
61.
KuckartzU. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
62.
LaveeE. (2021). Who is in charge? The provision of informal personal resources at the street level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa025
63.
LaveeE.StrierR. (2019). Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: Street-level bureaucrats reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12598
64.
LeeH.-J. (2001). Willingness and capacity: The determinants of prosocial organizational behaviour among nurses in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 1029–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/713769686
65.
LePineJ. A.ErezA.JohnsonD. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52
LinosE.RieschN. (2020). Thick red tape and the thin blue line: A field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13115
68.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
69.
LiuF.ChowI. H.HuangM. (2019). Increasing compulsory citizenship behavior and workload: Does impression management matter?Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01726
70.
LiuN.Van RooijB.LoC. W.-H. (2018). Beyond deterrent enforcement styles: Behavioural intuitions of Chinese environmental law enforcement agents in a context of challenging inspections. Public Administration, 96(3), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12415
71.
LiuY.ZhaoH.SheardG. (2017). Organizational citizenship pressure, compulsory citizenship behavior, and work–family conflict. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6064
72.
LubV. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation: Linking purposes, paradigms, and perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 160940691562140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621406
73.
MadsenJ. K. (2024). Frictions on both sides of the counter? A study of red tape among street-level bureaucrats and administrative burden among their clients. Administration & Society, 56(6), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241244694
74.
MadsenJ. K.MikkelsenK. S.MoynihanD. P. (2021). Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, oh my!: A user’s guide to the study of frictions. Public Administration, 100(2), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12717
75.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications.
76.
MasoodA.NisarM. A. (2022). Repairing the state: Policy repair in the frontline bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13414
77.
MayP. J.WinterS. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum030
78.
MikkelsenK. S.MadsenJ. K.BaekgaardM. (2024). Is stress among street-level bureaucrats associated with experiences of administrative burden among clients? A multilevel study of the Danish unemployment sector. Public Administration Review, 84(2), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13673
79.
MillsS. (2020). Nudge/sludge symmetry: On the relationship between nudge and sludge and the resulting ontological, normative and transparency implications. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.61
80.
MolinesM.MifsudM.El AkremiA.PerrierA. (2022). Motivated to serve: A regulatory perspective on public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13445
81.
MortensenN. M.NeedhamC. (2022). “I do not want to be one of her favourites.” Emotional display and the co-production of frontline care services. Public Management Review, 25(7), 1260–1281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2013071
82.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
83.
NielsenT. M.BachrachD. G.SundstromE.HalfhillT. R. (2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38(2), 668–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356326
OlsenA. L.HjorthF.HarmonN.BarfortS. (2019). Behavioral dishonesty in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy058
86.
OrganD. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
87.
PandeyS. K.WrightB. E.MoynihanD. P. (2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887947
88.
PeetersR.CamposS. A. (2022). Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196
89.
PengZ.ZhaoH. (2012). Does organization citizenship behavior really benefit the organization? Study on the compulsory citizenship behavior in China. Nankai Business Review International, 3(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408741211201935
90.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PaineJ. B.BachrachD. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00047-7
91.
PotipiroonW.FaermanS. (2020). Tired from working hard? Examining the effect of organizational citizenship behavior on emotional exhaustion and the buffering roles of public service motivation and perceived supervisor support. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(6), 1260–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1742168
92.
RenyM.-E. (2016). Authoritarianism as a research constraint: Political scientists in China*. Social Science Quarterly, 97(4), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12345
93.
ReshW. G.PittsD. W. (2013). No solutions, only trade-offs? Evidence about goal conflict in street-level bureaucracies. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02623.x
SatterstromP.KerrisseyM.DiBenignoJ. (2021). The voice cultivation process: How team members can help upward voice live on to implementation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 380–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220962795
96.
ScogginsS. E. (2014). Navigating fieldwork as an outsider: Observations from interviewing police officers in China. Political Science anD Politics, 47(2), 394–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514000274
97.
ScottP. G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024341
98.
ScottP. G.PandeyS. K. (2000). The influence of red tape on bureaucratic behavior: An experimental simulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<615::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-U
ShuC.-Y.ChiangY.-H.LuC.-H. (2018). Authoritarian leadership supervisor support and workers’ compulsory citizenship behavior. International Journal of Manpower, 39(3), 468–485. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2016-0191
SkinnerE. A.EdgeK.AltmanJ.SherwoodH. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 216–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216
StanicaC. M.BalicaD.HendersonA. C.ŢiclăuT. C. (2022). The weight of service delivery: Administrative and rules burdens in street-level bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319895095
105.
StazykE. C.GoerdelH. T. (2011). The benefits of bureaucracy: Public managers’ perceptions of political support, goal ambiguity, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq047
106.
StritchJ. M.ChristensenR. K. (2016). Going green in public organizations: Linking organizational commitment and public service motives to public employees’ workplace eco-initiatives. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(3), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014552470
107.
SunsteinC. R. (2021). Sludge: What stops us from getting things done and what to do about it. MIT Press.
108.
TengZ.WeiZ.QiuY.TanY.ChenJ.TangH.WuH.WuR.HuangJ. (2020). Psychological status and fatigue of frontline staff two months after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in China: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.032
TiggelaarM.GroeneveldS.GeorgeB. (2023). Coping with administrative tasks: A cross-country analysis from a street-level perspective. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13745
111.
TummersL.BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978
112.
TummersL.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
113.
van der KampD. S. (2021). Blunt force regulation and bureaucratic control: Understanding China’s war on pollution. Governance, 34(1), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12485
114.
van LoonN. M.LeisinkP. L. M.KniesE.BrewerG. A. (2016). Red tape: Developing and validating a new job-centered measure. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12569
115.
Vigoda-GadotE.BeeriI. (2012). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in public administration: The power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur036
116.
WangL.DemerittD.RothsteinH. (2023). “Carrying the black pot”: Food safety and risk in China’s reactive regulatory state. Regulation & Governance, 17(2), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12467
117.
WangT. (2022). The practical significance and development dilemma of selecting and dispatching cadres in villages in promoting the strategy of rural revitalization in an all-round way. Sustainable Development, 12(3), 724–728. https://doi.org/10.12677/SD.2022.123079
118.
XiangC.van GeveltT. (2020). Central inspection teams and the enforcement of environmental regulations in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.018
119.
ZegersM.VeenstraG. L.GerritsenG.VerhageR.van der HoevenH. J. G.WelkerG. A. (2022). Perceived burden due to registrations for quality monitoring and improvement in hospitals: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 11(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.96
120.
ZhouY.GuoY.LiuY.WuW.LiY. (2018). Targeted poverty alleviation and land policy innovation: Some practice and policy implications from China. Land Use Policy, 74, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.037
121.
ZuberK.StrachP.Pérez-ChiquésE. (2024). Trickle-down burdens: The effect of provider burdens on clients’ experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad024
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
