Just or Unjust? How Ideological Beliefs Shape Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Perceptions of Administrative Burden

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Elizabeth Bell,Ani Ter‐Mkrtchyan,Wesley Wehde,Kylie Smith
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13311

Research Article

610Public Administration Review • July | August 2021

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 4, pp. 610–624. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13311.

Abstract: Existing research finds that increases in administrative burden reduce client access, political efficacy,

and equity. However, extant literature has yet to investigate how administrative burden policies are interpreted

by street-level bureaucrats (SLB), whose values and beliefs structure uses of discretion and client experiences of

programs. In this article, we utilize quantitative and qualitative data to examine SLB policy preferences regarding

administrative burden in Oklahoma’s Promise—a means-tested college access program. Our findings demonstrate

that SLB in our sample interpret administrative burden policies through the lens of political ideology. Conservative

SLB express significantly more support for administrative burden policies, arguing that these policies prevent fraud

and demonstrate client deservingness. In contrast, predominantly liberal SLB justify opposition to administrative

burden by arguing that the requirements undermine social equity. Together, our findings reveal that SLB political

ideology shapes interpretations of administrative burden and perceptions of client deservingness in Oklahoma’s

Promise.

Evidence for Practice

• Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) vary in the degree to which they perceive administrative burden policies that

affect students as just or unjust.

• SLB political ideology affects beliefs about and justifications for administrative burden policies.

• Perceptions of deservingness of target populations shape policy preferences on administrative burden.

• Development of standard operating procedures at the state level will help SLB abstain from the influence of

values and ideology and achieve uniformity when implementing policies with administrative burden.

Public administration scholars are increasingly

concerned with the potential negative effects of

administrative burden—or policy designs that

create onerous experiences of government for clients—

on program access, social equity, and democratic

outcomes (Heinrich2018; Herd et al.2013; Herd

and Moynihan2018; Jilke, van Dooren, and

Rys2018; Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey2015;

Nisar2017). While the dominant narrative in public

administration scholarship casts policies contributing

to administrative burden as sinister, hidden policy

making with deleterious impacts on democratic

outcomes, it is unclear whether this narrative

reflects the perspectives of those on the front lines of

government who bear the responsibility and power to

shape client–state interactions (Bell and Smith2019;

Brodkin2012; Keiser2010; Lipsky2010; Maynard-

Moody and Musheno2003). Indeed, despite the

calls to investigate how decision makers distinguish

between reasonable and unreasonable administrative

burden, scholars have yet to thoroughly investigate

how bureaucrats on the front lines of government

view administrative burden policies. In this article,

we examine SLB policy preferences on administrative

burden as well as the narratives these bureaucrats use

to justify policy support or opposition.

We leverage a statewide survey of SLB in charge

of implementing a means-tested college access

program—Oklahoma’s Promise—that has been

subject to numerous consequential policy changes that

have made the program among the most burdensome

financial aid programs in the nation (Blatt2015).

This program, like Medicaid, Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF), and Supplementary

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has been

scrutinized by conservative legislators who want

to reduce the cost of the program and reduce the

possibility of fraud, waste, and abuse1 (Brodkin

and Majmundar2010; Keiser2010; Moynihan,

Herd, and Harvey2015). This scrutiny catalyzed

a series of programmatic policy changes including,

but not limited to, the addition of annual income

documentation, citizenship documentation, and

stringent academic requirements (Bell2019b). Each

of these policy changes is implemented through a

Just or Unjust? How Ideological Beliefs Shape Street-Level

Bureaucrats’ Perceptions of Administrative Burden

Elizabeth Bell

Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan

Wesley Wehde

Kylie Smith

Miami University

New Mexico State University

East Tennessee State University

University of Oklahoma

Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan is an assistant

professor at the Department of Government

at New Mexico State University. Her work

has been published in various journals, and

her main research interests center around

the questions of citizen–state interactions,

public trust, public and nonprofit

accountability, bureaucratic responsiveness,

and performance measurement and

transparency. She is also passionate about

environmental policy and has previously

worked as a practitioner in the international

non-governmental organizations sector.

Email: aniterm@gmail.com

Elizabeth Bell is an assistant professor of

Public Administration in the Department of

Political Science at Miami University in Ohio.

Her research examines how public managers

operate within politically designed policy

regimes to shape inequality. The goal of her

work is to improve the ability of government

programs to meet policy goals and alleviate

inequality in college access and success.

Elizabeth’s work has been published in

journals such as

The Journal of Politics,

Public Administration Review

, and

American

Educational Research Journal

.

Email: ebell@miamioh.edu

Wesley Wehde is an assistant professor

at East Tennessee State University in

the Department of Political Science,

International Affairs, and Public

Administration. His research interests

include environmental and natural hazards

policy preferences, federalism, emergency

management, and research methods.

His previous work can be found in

Policy

Studies Journal, Review of Policy Research

,

and

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy

.

Email: wehdew@etsu.edu