IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v43y2026i2ne70027.html

Policy Instruments, Administrative Burdens, and Coproduction Preferences: Experimental Evidence From Household Waste Sorting

Author

Listed:
  • Youlang Zhang
  • Huan Wang
  • Mengqi Zhao

Abstract

Despite extensive research on individual‐ and organizational‐level determinants of coproduction preferences, empirical evidence regarding the role of policy design remains limited. This study develops a theoretical framework to examine how different policy instruments shape individuals' willingness to coproduce public services by influencing perceived administrative burdens. Using a conjoint experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample in China, we investigate the distinct effects of multiple policy instruments—namely regulatory mandates (“sticks”), economic incentives (“carrots”), informational campaigns (“sermons”), and behavioral interventions (“nudges”)—on individuals' perceptions of learning, psychological, and compliance costs. Our findings indicate that these policy instruments significantly and differentially affect perceived administrative burdens, which in turn substantially reduce respondents' willingness to participate in household waste sorting. This research contributes to the literature on policy design and individual‐state interactions by highlighting administrative burdens as a critical mediating mechanism linking policy instruments to coproduction participation. Practically, it provides valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance public service coproduction through informed policy design. 尽管大量研究聚焦于合作生产偏好在个人和组织层面的决定因素但关于政策设计作用的实证证据仍然有限。本研究提出一个理论框架以分析不同的政策工具如何通过影响感知的行政负担来塑造个人在合作生产公共服务方面的意愿。通过使用一项在中国具有全国代表性样本的联合实验我们考察了多种政策工具对个人感知的学习成本、心理成本和合规成本的不同影响这些政策工具分别为监管强制令(“大棒”)、经济激励(“胡萝卜”)、信息宣传活动(“说教”)和行为干预(“助推”)。我们的研究结果表明这些政策工具显著且差异化地影响了感知的行政负担进而大幅降低了受访者参与家庭垃圾分类的意愿。通过强调行政负担是“连接政策工具与合作生产参与”的一项关键中介机制本研究为政策设计和个体与国家互动方面的文献作贡献。从实践角度来看本研究为那些旨在通过明智的政策设计来促进公共服务合作生产的政策制定者和从业人员提供了宝贵的见解。 A pesar de la extensa investigación sobre los determinantes individuales y organizacionales de las preferencias de coproducción, la evidencia empírica sobre el rol del diseño de políticas públicas sigue siendo limitada. Este estudio desarrolla un marco teórico para examinar cómo los diferentes instrumentos de política influyen en la disposición de los individuos a coproducir servicios públicos al influir en las cargas administrativas percibidas. Mediante un experimento conjunto realizado con una muestra representativa a nivel nacional en China, investigamos los distintos efectos de múltiples instrumentos de política—a saber, mandatos regulatorios («palos»), incentivos económicos («zanahorias»), campañas informativas («sermones») e intervenciones conductuales («empujoncitos»)—sobre la percepción individual de los costos de aprendizaje, psicológicos y de cumplimiento. Nuestros hallazgos indican que estos instrumentos de política afectan significativa y diferencialmente las cargas administrativas percibidas, lo que a su vez reduce sustancialmente la disposición de los encuestados a participar en la clasificación de residuos domésticos. Esta investigación contribuye a la literatura sobre diseño de políticas y las interacciones entre individuos y estados al destacar las cargas administrativas como un mecanismo mediador crítico que vincula los instrumentos de política con la participación en la coproducción. En la práctica, proporciona información valiosa para los responsables políticos y los profesionales que buscan mejorar la coproducción de servicios públicos mediante un diseño de políticas informado.

Suggested Citation

  • Youlang Zhang & Huan Wang & Mengqi Zhao, 2026. "Policy Instruments, Administrative Burdens, and Coproduction Preferences: Experimental Evidence From Household Waste Sorting," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70027
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70027. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.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.