Poster #65 - Citizens' Responses to Administrative Burdens: Conjoint Evidence from Universal and Means-Tested Energy Programs

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Administrative burdens critically shape citizen engagement in public programs, yet the relative significance of these burdens in influencing participation decisions remains unclear. Furthermore, existing literature rarely addresses whether these effects vary across different policy contexts, particularly in universal versus means-tested programs. This study aims to address these gaps by investigating two key questions: (1) Which types of administrative burdens (i.e., learning, compliance, and psychological costs) most significantly hinder citizen participation? (2) How do these effects differ between universal (available to all) and means-tested (income-eligible) energy programs? Employing a conjoint experimental design, this study examines citizens’ sensitivity toward administrative burdens in local government energy efficiency (EE) programs.

To enhance the contextual validity, the study is conducted with approximately 1,300 residents in a middle-sized U.S. city. Relying on a novel house-level dataset from 2011 to 2019 that includes detailed records on local EE program participation, housing characteristics, and socioeconomic status, we stratify the survey sample using quotas based on household income, party affiliation and past program participation. Respondents were randomly assigned to evaluate two policy scenarios representing either a universal local Energy Rebate Program, or a means-tested Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Both scenarios offer financial incentives aimed at reducing household energy costs and promoting energy-efficient appliance purchases, which emphasizing both individual and collective environmental benefits. Respondents then were tasked with choosing their preferred program option based on a combination of attributes representing various administrative burdens: learning costs (i.e., information accessibility and availability of assistance), compliance costs (i.e., application time, installation restrictions, and purchasing limitations), and psychological costs (i.e., outreach support, peer effects, and stigma reduction via program messaging). Financial support amounts served as an additional monetary attribute.

The anticipated findings include quantifying which administrative burdens exert the strongest negative effects on citizen participation and discerning how these effects differ significantly between universal and means-tested contexts. Preliminary hypotheses suggest that psychological burdens, particularly those associated with stigma and outreach support, will have greater salience in means-tested programs, whereas compliance and learning costs may more heavily influence universal program participation. The effect of the three types of costs may also interact with financial amount. Our findings help guide public managers in strategically designing and communicating local programs to mitigate critical administrative burdens and enhance citizen participation in local programs, especially among underserved populations.

Author

• Guimin Zheng, Iowa State University
  Presenting Author