Rationale and process transparency do not reduce perceived red tape: evidence from a survey experiment
| Author | Wesley Kaufmann,Alex Ingrams,Daan Jacobs |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320966037 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Rationale and process
transparency do not
reduce perceived red
tape: evidence from a
survey experiment
Wesley Kaufmann
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Alex Ingrams
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Daan Jacobs
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Abstract
Red tape is a salient societal problem but there is a dearth of research on how per-
ceived red tape can be reduced. Building on the transparency literature, we hypothesize
that higher levels of rationale and process transparency will result in lower levels of
perceived red tape. We test our reasoning using a survey experiment. Specifically, we
have US citizens rate the level of red tape associated with the burdensome process of
obtaining a driver’s license at the Department of Motor Vehicles. We find that providing
rationale and process transparency to citizens does not influence perceived red tape.
Hence, organizations are advised to look for more fine-grained approaches to reduce
perceptions of unnecessarily burdensome rules, while realizing that a certain level of
perceived red tape is likely an unavoidable part of bureaucratic functioning.
Points for practitioners
The findings from this study show that merely being transparent about the rationale and
process of a burdensome rule is not enough to reduce perceived red tape. Rather,
Corresponding author:
Wesley Kaufmann, Tilburg University, Cobbenhagenlaan 221 Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Email: wes.kaufmann@gmail.com
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020852320966037
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
2022, Vol. 88(4) 960–976
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
policymakers and managers are advised to gain a better understanding of the different
causes of red tape (disentangling genuine concerns from unfounded rhetoric), develop
coherent strategies that adequately balance the trade-offs between organizational goals
and citizen red tape, and be transparent about these trade-offs.
Keywords
experiment, process transparency, rationale transparency, red tape
Introduction
Red tape, which is often conceptualized as unnecessarily burdensome written rules
(Bozeman, 1993), has been found to have negative impacts on organizational per-
formance (Brewer and Walker, 2010b; Kaufmann et al., 2019b), employee moti-
vation (DeHart-Davis and Pandey, 2005), and citizen satisfaction (Tummers et al.,
2016). Some academic research assumes that red tape can be reduced by, among
others, repealing unnecessary rules, minimizing paperwork, and limiting compli-
ance costs (Bozeman and Feeney, 2011; Kaufmann and van Witteloostuijn, 2018).
At the same time, a growing stream of literature argues that red tape is mostly
perceptual in nature (e.g. Kaufmann et al., 2019a; Stanica et al., forthcoming).
This latter conceptualization of red tape implies that changing stakeholder impres-
sions and understanding regarding unnecessarily burdensome written rules may
reduce perceived red tape, even if the underlying rules themselves remain the
same. This study aims to test this reasoning, building on the transparency and
red tape literatures.
The transparency literature includes a wide range of empirical findings on the
positive impacts of transparency on public organization decision-making and func-
tioning (e.g. Heald, 2012; Ingrams et al., 2020; Meijer, 2009). To illustrate, the
positive impact of anti-corruption policies through enhanced transparency and
accountability has been extensively studied (Bertot et al., 2010), as has the positive
reward of transparency for organizations in terms of organizational goal clarity
(Ingrams, 2018). We hypothesize that providing high levels of both rationale and
process transparency can also reduce perceived red tape. Rationale transparency is
expected to reduce perceived red tape because rule stakeholders can rationalize
that some administrative burdens are a necessary means to an end when they know
the intended goal of a rule. In the absence of rationale transparency, rule stake-
holders are left to speculate about a rule’s intended purpose (DeHart-Davis,
2009a). Furthermore, process transparency can limit perceived red tape because
rule stakeholders appreciate that the rule is a complex product of decision-making
and discussion processes when they see the process that underlies a rule. This
dynamic reflects some of the positive effects of procedural fairness on assessments
of decisions (Tyler, 1989).
961
Kaufmann et al.
To continue reading
Request your trial