Using a survey of nearly 2,000 federal government employees, we test the extent to which civil servants are willing to use their position to impose administrative burdens on political opponents. Such an act would create a burden of bad intentions. Rather than discovering that administrators are partisan actors through their use of burdens, we find that federal public employees support administrative burdens when they reduce fraud and waste. Furthermore, these civil servants are also not politically motivated. More precisely, federal government employees do not support administrative burdens that will give unequal benefits to members of their own political party or that will create uneven challenges for members of the opposition. Therefore, we theorize that administrators’ decisions relating to burden are motivated by a general concern for efficiency and ethics, even as decisions related to compliance and discretion may be divided into partisan lines.
AarøeL.BaekgaardM.ChristensenJ.MoynihanD. P. (2021). Personality and public administration: Policymaker tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13381
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. (2022). Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab027
4.
BellE.Ter-MkrtchyanA.WehdeW.SmithK. (2021). Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13311
5.
BertelliA. M.LynnL. E. (2006). Madison’s manager. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
BozemanB. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Prentice Hall.
7.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02600.x
8.
CepikuD.MastrodascioM. (2021). Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81, 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13402
9.
DemirT.NyhanR. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00839.x
10.
Du GayP. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy. Sage Publications.
11.
DynesA. M.HassellHans J. G.MilesM. R. (2021). Political ambition and constituent service: Does ambition influence how local officials respond to electoral and non-electoral service requests?American Politics Research, 49(6), 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211013479
12.
DynesA. M.Hassell HansJ. G.MilesM. R. (2023). Personality traits and approaches to political representation and responsiveness: An experiment in local government. Political Behavior, 45(4), 1791–1811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09800-7
13.
HallingA.HerdP.MoynihanD. (2023). How difficult should it be? Evidence of burden tolerance from a nationally representative sample. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2053–2072. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2056910
14.
HattkeF.HenselD.KaluczaJ. (2020). Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13116
15.
HecloH. (1975). OMB and the presidency—The problem of neutral competence. The Public Interest, 38, 80–98.
16.
HeinrichC. J. (2016). The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv034
17.
HeinrichC. J.BrillR. (2015). Stopped in the name of the law: Administrative burden and its implications for cash transfer program effectiveness. World Development, 72, 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.015
18.
HerdP.DeLeireT.HarveyH.MoynihanD. P. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(S1), S69–S81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12114
19.
HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
HollibaughG. E.MilesM. R.NewswanderC. B. (2020). Why public employees rebel: Guerrilla government in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 64–74. http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.v80.1
21.
JilkeS.Van DoorenW.RysS. (2018). Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: Does a public–private difference exist?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy009
22.
KaufmanH. (2015). Red tape. Brookings Institution Press.
23.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
MadsenJ. K.MikkelsenK. S.MoynihanD. P. (2022). 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
25.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
26.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357
27.
MoynihanD. (2018). A great schism approaching? Towards a micro and macro public administration. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.11.15
28.
MoynihanD.HerdP. (2010). Red tape and democracy: How rules affect citizenship rights. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(6), 654–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010366732
29.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
30.
NewswanderC. B. (2015). Guerrilla statesmanship: Constitutionalizing an ethic of dissent. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12293
31.
NewswanderC. B. (2018). Administrative ethics and executive decisions: Channeling and containing administrative discretion. Routledge.
32.
NisarM. A. (2018). Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux025
33.
O’LearyR. (2020). The ethics of dissent: Managing Guerrilla government (3rd ed.). CQ Press.
34.
OvereemP. (2005). The value of the dichotomy: Politics, administration, and the political neutrality of administrators. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2005.11029490
ThompsonD. (1985). The possibility of administrative ethics. Public Administration Review, 45(5), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109930
40.
TiggelaarM.GeorgeB. (2023). No two-party game: How third-sector organizations alter administrative burden and improve social equity. Public Management Review, 1–22.
41.
WamsleyG. L. (1990). The agency perspective: Public administrators as agential leaders. In WamsleyG. L.BacherR. N.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP. S.RohrJ. A.StiversC. M.WhiteO. F.WolfJ. F. (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 114–162). Sage Publications.
42.
WeberM. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Oxford University Press.
43.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.
44.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
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.
