![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Almost all red tape research is anchored in a relatively small number of theoretical formulations and formal red tape concepts. My article analyzes these concepts, including Kaufman's red tape concept, organizational red tape, and stakeholder red tape. After reviewing previous concepts of red tape I suggest a new one, multidimensional red tape. The basic idea of multidimensional red tape is that red tape is subject-dependent and that rules and regulations may be pathological in some elements and not others, even with respect to the same stakeholder. Multidimensional red tape seeks to provide a conceptual platform for enhancing researchers’ ability to assess multiple costs and benefits of rules and, thereby, to identify rules in need of reform, even in cases where rules are not judged to be red tape.
Notes
Pugh and colleagues (1969, 75) define formalization as “the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions and communications are written.”
The term “theory” has a great many meanings and is used in many different ways even in the same discipline or field. In its most relaxed form “theory” can refer to a hunch. In its most stringent form theory can refer to an empirically grounded and tested set of interrelated propositions formalized in axiomatic or mathematical structure (e.g., Popper 1959). By the more stringent criteria there is no theory in all of public administration and very little in the social sciences. Throughout this article, when I use the term “theory” I am referring to conceptual devices, such as models, typologies, taxonomies, or sets of propositions, developed to enable or contribute to explanation of phenomena. There is no implication that the theory, in the sense I am using it here, has been validated or even tested.
Multidimensional red tape was discussed briefly in Bozeman and Feeney (2011). However, the concept presented here is substantially different and discussed in greater detail.
“Influence” does not necessarily imply acceptance or positive assessment. While some researchers employ the concept as a foundation to build upon, others take it as a good beginning point for criticism of concepts and theory of red tape.
Indeed, Waldo was writing at a time sufficiently long ago that the convention for using male pronouns for gendered collectives had not yet been overturned.
I do not mean to denigrate the musings of very talented scholars, especially when the list includes Merton, Waldo, Kaufman, and Gouldner. Their musings may be as valuable as all the formal study that has subsequently appeared. My point: formal study and empirical research have something to offer that is different and valuable.
This assessment refers only to Title V. In many other respects the Clean Air Act Amendments were remarkably successful (Krupnick and Morgenstern 2002).
To give just a few illustrations of the red tape studies employing the organizational red tape concept developed in Bozeman (1993): Moon and Bretschneider 2002; Pandey and Garnett 2006; Chen and Williams 2007; Pandey, Coursey, and Moynihan 2007; Walker and Brewer 2008; Brewer and Walker 2010a; 2010b; Feeney and Rainey 2010. For better or worse, organizational red tape has become the canonical concept employed in red tape research.
It is important to note that the model provided in Figure 1 is for what I refer to as “rule-evolved red tape” (Bozeman 2000). In some cases, red tape occurs at the very beginning of a poorly designed rule (“rule-inception red tape”). Thus, the model is applicable to rule-inception red tape; the rule would simply be placed in the red tape gradient at its very inception rather than after its implementation.