Being Consistent Matters: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Rule Consistency on Citizen Red Tape

• Author: Alex Ingrams,Wesley Kaufmann,Daan Jacobs
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020954250
• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020954250

American Review of Public Administration

2021, Vol. 51(1) 28 –39

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020954250

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction

A growing stream of research in public administration is con-

cerned with how burdensome rules and requirements nega-

tively affect citizen satisfaction, the quality of public service

delivery, and citizenship rights (e.g., Christensen et al., 2020;

Kaufmann et al., 2019; Kaufmann & Tummers, 2017;

Tummers et al., 2016). This type of research is timely, as

many existing regulatory reform programs aim to alleviate

red tape and administrative burdens for citizens (e.g.,

Kaufmann et al., 2018; Ntaliani & Costopoulou, 2018). Yet,

there remains a knowledge gap when it comes to our under-

standing of how citizens perceive red tape and administrative

burdens, especially because a certain amount of administra-

tive burden is required for the effective functioning of

bureaucracy (Kaufman, 1977; Moynihan & Herd, 2010).

This is where we seek to make our contribution.

In this article, we draw on insights from the procedural

fairness literature and hypothesize that rule consistency and

outcome favorability both affect the level of perceived citi-

zen red tape. Rule consistency is a fundamental part of effec-

tive citizen–state interactions. A lack of rule consistency

implies that citizens may not be treated fairly, which can

result in feelings of resentment toward government (Lens,

2009). Inconsistently applied rules fuel perceptions of inef-

fective government rules and—consequently—high levels of

red tape (De Jong & van Witteloostuijn, 2015).

Another key part of the red tape and procedural fairness

puzzle is the degree to which decision outcomes favorably (or

unfavorably) affect individuals. Studies have shown that indi-

viduals evaluate social exchanges more positively if they

receive a favorable outcome (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2003;

Brockner, 2002). As such, we hypothesize that individuals

receiving an unfavorable outcome perceive a higher level of

red tape compared with individuals receiving a favorable out-

come. Indeed, earlier experimental work has already shown

that outcome favorability has a statistically significant effect

on perceived red tape (Kaufmann & Feeney, 2014).

We also hypothesize an interaction effect between consis-

tency and outcome favorability. Studies have found that per-

ceptions of procedural fairness, as evidenced by consistent

rule application, are especially important if outcomes are

unfavorable (e.g., Brockner et al., 2007; Y. Chen et al., 2003).

At the same time, citizens may feel more deserving of a

favorable outcome when rules are applied consistently

(Blader & Tyler, 2003; Skitka, 2009) and consider decision

outcomes as mere capricious bureaucratic behavior

(Bozeman & Feeney, 2011) if rules are not. Either way, we

expect an interaction effect of rule consistency and outcome

favorability on perceived red tape.

954250ARPXXX10.1177/0275074020954250The American Review of Public AdministrationKaufmann et al.

research-article2020

1Tilburg University, The Netherlands

2Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Wesley Kaufmann, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Professor

Cobbenhagenlaan 221, Tilburg 5000 LE, The Netherlands.

Email: w.kaufmann@uvt.nl

Being Consistent Matters: Experimental

Evidence on the Effect of Rule Consistency

on Citizen Red Tape

Wesley Kaufmann1, Alex Ingrams2, and Daan Jacobs1

Abstract

A growing stream of research in public administration is concerned with how red tape and administrative burden affects

citizens. Drawing on the procedural fairness literature, we argue that the consistent application of rules reduces perceived

red tape. We also hypothesize that red tape perceptions are affected by outcome favorability and that an interaction effect

exists between consistency and outcome favorability. Our reasoning is tested with a survey experiment in the context of

a federal jury duty summons procedure, and administered to a sample of U.S. citizens through TurkPrime. The statistical

results support our hypotheses; perceived red tape is lower if rules are applied consistently and if citizens receive a favorable

outcome. We also find that consistently applying a procedure reduces perceived red tape further when citizens receive a

favorable outcome. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

red tape, rule consistency, outcome favorability, survey experiment, jury service