Public administration research has tended to treat red tape as an objective characteristic of formal organisational rules. In this view, red tape can be reduced by repealing unnecessary rules, limiting compliance burdens, or... [ view full abstract ]
Public administration research has tended to treat red tape as an objective characteristic of formal organisational rules. In this view, red tape can be reduced by repealing unnecessary rules, limiting compliance burdens, or ensuring a better fit with their environment (Bozeman and Feeney 2011). By contrast, a more recent stream of literature tries to understand the organisational implications of red tape’s perceptual nature (e.g. Kaufmann and Feeney 2012 and 2014; Brewer and Walker 2012). In the current paper, the authors address a question that is so far largely unexplored, which is whether rule transparency influences the perception red tape.
Building on the transparency literature (e.g., DeHart Davis 2009; de Fine Licht et al. 2014; Heald 2006), we hypothesize that higher levels of rationale and process transparency result in lower levels of perceived red tape. Rationale transparency is expected to reduce perceived red tape, because organisational members can rationalize that some regulations are a necessary means to an end when they know the intended goal of a rule. Meanwhile, process transparency likely limits perceived red tape, because members can see and appreciate that the rule is a complex product involving decision-making and discussion processes. We test our reasoning using an experimental design that incorporates a “real” procedure where university students rate a burdensome university rule on promotional activities for student associations. In so doing, we take advantage of the stylized environment of an experiment for testing causal relationships, with particular attention paid to the internal validity of our design.
The authors discuss the implications for research in the areas of red tape and transparency studies as well as developments in the field of behavioural theory in public administration.
References:
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Brewer, G. A. and Walker, R. M. (2012) Red Tape: The Bane of Public Organizations? In Public Management and Performance: Research Directions, edited by Richard M. Walker, George A.Boyne, and Gene A. Brewer, 110 – 126. New York: Cambridge University Press.
de Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context‐bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111-134.
DeHart-Davis, L. (2009a) ‘Green Tape: A Theory of Effective Organizational Rules’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2): 361-384.
Heald, David. 2006. Varieties of Transparency. In Transparency: e Key to Better Governance? edited by Christopher Hood and David Heald, 25–43. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kaufmann, W. and Feeney, M. K. (2012) ‘Objective Formalization, Perceived Formalization, and Perceived Red Tape’, Public Management Review, 14(8): 1195-1214.
Kaufmann, W. and Feeney, M. K. (2014) ‘Beyond the Rules: The Effect of Outcome Favourability on Red Tape Perceptions’, Public Administration, 92(1): 178-191.
The administrative burden of formalization, regulations and red tape
