Fewer Burdens but Greater Inequality? Reevaluating the Safety Net through the Lens of Administrative Burden

• Published date: 01 March 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00027162231198976
• Author: Pamela Herd,Donald Moynihan
• Date: 01 March 2023

94 ANNALS, AAPSS, 706, March 2023

DOI: 10.1177/00027162231198976

Fewer Burdens

but Greater

Inequality?

Reevaluating

the Safety Net

through the

Lens of

Administrative

Burden

By

PAMELA HERD

and

DONALD MOYNIHAN

1198976ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYFEWER BURDENS BUT GREATER INEQUALITY?

research-article2023

We examine changes in administrative burden in U.S.

social safety net programs, or the negative encounters

with the state that people experience when trying to

access and use the benefits for which they are eligible.

Existing theories equate targeted safety net policies,

which sharply limit eligibility, as compared to universal

policies, which have more expansive eligibility, with

increased administrative burden. The past 30 years,

however, tell a more complicated story. While overall

burdens have declined in most targeted programs,

there is evidence of increasing inequality regarding

who faces these burdens. We trace the cause to three

factors: (1) expansions in targeted programs, like

Medicaid, gave states more administrative control,

which increased both geographic and racial disparities

in administrative burden; (2) delivering benefits

through the tax system created more burdens for low-

income populations compared to high-income popula-

tions; and (3) a growing reliance on private providers to

deliver benefits and services created higher burdens for

low-income populations to navigate.

Keywords: administrative burden; poverty; social pol-

icy; inequality

The past 30 years have been characterized

by a radically shifting landscape in social

welfare supports for families and children,

Correspondence: ph627@georgetown.edu

Pamela Herd is a professor of public policy at

Georgetown University. Her research focuses on the

consequences of inequality and ways to reduce it. Her

book, Administrative Burden, coauthored with Donald

Moynihan, is the winner of multiple best-book awards

and has helped inform recent executive actions to

reduce burden in federal benefit programs.

Donald Moynihan is a professor of public policy at

Georgetown University in the McCourt School of

Public Policy. His research seeks to improve how the

government works. His book, Administrative Burden,

coauthored with Pamela Herd, is the winner of multiple

best-book awards and has helped inform recent execu-

tive actions to reduce burden in federal benefit

programs.

FEWER BURDENS BUT GREATER INEQUALITY? 95

including both retrenchment and expansion of key income and health supports

(see Jackson and Fanelli, this volume). While a robust literature examines these

broader policy design changes, especially those centered on welfare reform, less

attention has been paid to radical administrative changes in the social welfare

safety net and the consequent implications for administrative burdens.

Administrative burdens are the onerous and costly experiences that people

encounter when navigating government programs (Herd and Moynihan 2018).

These burdens undermine, sometimes significantly, the redistributive nature of

social welfare benefits. Mapping the post–welfare reform terrain of administra-

tive burdens therefore provides a fuller picture of how the welfare state shapes

inequality.

Looking at these burdens provides a different lens on the changes to the social

welfare safety net over the past 30 years. Existing theories often center on dis-

tinctions between targeted programs, or those with quite restrictive eligibility,

versus universal benefit programs, which have expansive eligibility. The basic

theory is that the more targeted the program, the more burdens tend to be pre-

sent. For example, programs tightly targeted at individuals with low incomes tend

to have higher burdens than programs that also include middle- and higher-

income people.

But the past 30 years tell a much more complicated story. Burdens have been

declining on average in most, though not all, means-tested programs—especially

in those with expanded eligibility and coverage—and more resources have been

going to less burdensome programs. These declines are reflected in the increase

over time in take-up among those eligible for Medicaid and the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) broadly and suggest how specific burden

reductions are associated with increased take-up (Herd and Moynihan 2018).

At the same time, there has been increased variance in peoples’ experiences,

with inequalities in the experience of burden among beneficiaries growing. The

source of these inequalities can be traced to three key factors. First, federalism

in the U.S. has established a system in which the benefits of reduced burdens

vary substantially based on which state you live in, thus exacerbating racial dis-

parities and anti-immigrant practices that vary by location (Michener 2018;

Michener, this volume). Second, although the shift towards delivering benefits

through the tax system has decreased burdens on average, it has also exacerbated

inequalities in the experience of burdens. Aided by professional tax help, indi-

viduals with high incomes generally access their supports via the tax system. By

contrast, those with lower incomes have to navigate far more complicated welfare

programs, are often disconnected from the benefits of the tax system, and are at

higher risk of burdens via tax audit processes. Finally, the shift towards privatiz-

ing the delivery of social welfare benefits, what Morgan and Campbell (2011) call

“delegated governance,” necessitates reliance on private actors to access public

benefits—a system that tends to feature higher burdens that are more difficult

for low-income populations to navigate.

In this article, we first describe the concept of administrative burdens. The

next section details how administrative burdens in our largest income support

policies, including the SNAP, have changed since the 1996 welfare reform. We