IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucd/wpaper/202202.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Everyday Administrative Burdens and Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Martin

    (University College Dublin School of Economics and Geary Institute for Public Policy)

  • Liam Delaney

    (London School of Economics Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science)

  • Orla Doyle

    (University College Dublin School of Economics and Geary Institute for Public Policy)

Abstract

Administrative burdens may deepen inequality by creating costly experiences for vulnerable groups. Research to date typically focuses on how burdens affect decisions in specific policy contexts, thus little is known about everyday experiences of burdens and their distribution in society. This is the first study to document everyday administrative experiences, accounting for time and emotional costs across ten domains: tax, retirement, government benefits, bills, goods and services, savings, debt, health, childcare, and adult care. Results from 2,243 UK adults show that administrative tasks are a significant part of life (one hour per day). Time and emotional costs vary by domain; government benefits emerge as particularly costly. There is evidence that administrative burdens are regressive, not only through their effects on decisions, but through their unequal distribution in society. Those in poor health and financial insecurity focus on tasks salient to them (e.g. benefits, health, debt), but are less likely to engage in beneficial longer-term tasks (e.g. savings, retirement), and suffer higher emotional costs from engaging in tasks relevant to their disadvantage, compared to non-disadvantaged groups. A choice experiment shows that (hypothetical) burdens discourage beneficial action in general, but even more so for some disadvantaged groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Martin & Liam Delaney & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Everyday Administrative Burdens and Inequality," Working Papers 202202, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:202202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp202202.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arulsamy, Karen & Delaney, Liam, 2022. "The impact of automatic enrolment on the mental health gap in pension participation: Evidence from the UK," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Manasi Deshpande & Yue Li, 2019. "Who Is Screened Out? Application Costs and the Targeting of Disability Programs," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 213-248, November.
    3. Tasoff, Joshua & Letzler, Robert, 2014. "Everyone believes in redemption: Nudges and overoptimism in costly task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 107-122.
    4. Stephen B. Holt & Katie Vinopal, 2023. "Examining inequality in the time cost of waiting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 545-555, April.
    5. Susan Dynarski & CJ Libassi & Katherine Michelmore & Stephanie Owen, 2021. "Closing the Gap: The Effect of Reducing Complexity and Uncertainty in College Pricing on the Choices of Low-Income Students," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1721-1756, June.
    6. Alan B. Krueger, 2009. "Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue08-1, March.
    7. Krueger, Alan B. (ed.), 2009. "Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226454573, September.
    8. Elizabeth Linos & Allen Prohofsky & Aparna Ramesh & Jesse Rothstein & Matthew Unrath, 2022. "Can Nudges Increase Take-Up of the EITC? Evidence from Multiple Field Experiments," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 432-452, November.
    9. Saurabh Bhargava & Dayanand Manoli, 2015. "Psychological Frictions and the Incomplete Take-Up of Social Benefits: Evidence from an IRS Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3489-3529, November.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    11. Krueger, Alan B. (ed.), 2009. "Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226454566, December.
    12. Veerle Miranda, 2011. "Cooking, Caring and Volunteering: Unpaid Work Around the World," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 116, OECD Publishing.
    13. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doorley, Karina & Kakoulidou, Theano, 2023. "The trouble with take-up," Papers WP750, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    2. Doorley Karina & Kakoulidou Theano, 2024. "The Trouble with Take-Up," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 24(2), pages 673-682, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dong, Han & Zhang, Jun & Cirillo, Cinzia, 2019. "Exploring, understanding, and modeling the reciprocal relation between leisure and subjective well-being," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 813-824.
    2. Song, Younghwan & Gao, Jia, 2018. "Does Telework Stress Employees Out? A Study on Working at Home and Subjective Well-Being for Wage/Salary Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 11993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Christopher Mackie & Conal Smith, 2015. "Conceptualizing Subjective Well-Being And Its Many Dimensions – Implications For Data Collection In Official Statistics And For Policy Relevance," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-372, September.
    4. Jiri Zuzanek & Tamara Zuzanek, 2015. "Of Happiness and of Despair, Is There a Measure? Time Use and Subjective Well-being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 839-856, August.
    5. J. Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & Lucia Mangiavacchi & Luca Piccoli, 2016. "Mobility across generations of the gender distribution of housework," Working Papers 402, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    6. Song, Younghwan, 2015. "A Cross-State Comparison of Measures of Subjective Well-Being," IZA Discussion Papers 9396, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Younghwan Song, 2018. "Job displacement and subjective well-being: findings from the American Time Use Survey Well-Being Modules," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 52(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. John F. Helliwell & Christopher P. Barrington-Leigh, 2010. "Measuring and Understanding Subjective Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 15887, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Marie Connolly, 2013. "Some Like It Mild and Not Too Wet: The Influence of Weather on Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 457-473, April.
    10. Andreas Knabe & Steffen Rätzel & Ronnie Schöb & Joachim Weimann, 2010. "Dissatisfied with Life but Having a Good Day: Time-use and Well-being of the Unemployed," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(547), pages 867-889, September.
    11. Marta Lachowska, 2017. "The Effect of Income on Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from the 2008 Economic Stimulus Tax Rebates," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(2), pages 374-417.
    12. Diego Zavaleta & Kim Samuel & China T. Mills, 2017. "Measures of Social Isolation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 367-391, March.
    13. Michael Daly & Liam Delaney & Orla Doyle & Nick Fitzpatrick & Christine O'Farrelly, 2014. "Can Early Intervention Policies Improve Well-being? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial," Working Papers 201415, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    14. Cristina BorraBy & Martin Browning & Almudena Sevilla, 2021. "Marriage and housework [Measuring trends in leisure: the allocation of time over five decades]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(2), pages 479-508.
    15. Clément S. Bellet & Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward, 2019. "Does employee happiness have an impact on productivity?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1655, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron, 2016. "Climate policy when preferences are endogenous – and sometimes they are," INET Oxford Working Papers 2016-04, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    17. Andrew L. Kun & Raffaella Sadun & Orit Shaer & Thomaz Teodorovicz, 2022. "How does working from home during Covid-19 affect what managers do? Evidence from time-use studies," CEP Discussion Papers dp1844, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Stutzer, Alois & Frey, Bruno S., 2012. "Recent Developments in the Economics of Happiness: A Selective Overview," IZA Discussion Papers 7078, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Erik Angner, 2011. "Current Trends in Welfare Measurement," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Benjamin Volland, 2012. "The vertical transmission of time use choices," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2012-05, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    administrative burden; inequality; time-use; subjective well-being; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • J10 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:202202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geary Tech (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geucdie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.