to abuse for partisan interest and thus affects the redistribution of state resources to the society” (Utama 2014, 9). Spinesi (2009, 245) also points out that “bad bureaucratic quality produces a waste of relatively scarce resources that can severely exacerbate income inequality and can damage the development performance” in both developed and developing countries.

Most of the empirical research has to date focused on the impact of bureaucratic complexity on organizations rather than on citizens. The World Bank’s _Doing Business_ project (World Bank 2018a) and the vast empirical literature using its data provide numerous examples of how bureaucratic complexity can affect a firm’s ability to operate and grow.<sup>1</sup> There is no equivalent literature on the relationship between bureaucratic complexity and individual outcomes such as access to basic services or exercising of civil rights.

Among the few studies in this area, Moynihan and Herd (2010) show that the compliance burden generated by administrative rules in the United States restricts access to political and social rights such as voting and health care. Alvarez et al. (2008) analyzed data from the 2008 U.S. presidential election and found that reasons for not voting were registration issues (13 percent of nonvoters) and incorrect identification (7 percent of nonvoters). Currie (2004) showed that enrollment in social programs in the U.S. and in the U.K. was reduced by administrative barriers, and she remarked that filling the data gap for these barriers would substantially help better understand enrollment. Banerjee et al. (2008) reviewed access and affordability of infrastructure across SubSaharan Africa and remarked how connection costs and legal issues, such as land ownership and insecurities over land tenure, can prevent households from hooking up to otherwise available services.

The burden of complying with regulations often disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups such as lower-educated or poor individuals. This is the administratively disadvantaged as defined by Brodkin and Majmundar (2010). For example, Gertler and van der Gaag (1990) found that the demand for health care in Côte d'Ivoire was more sensitive for lower-income individuals than for higher-income individuals to changes in the time required to obtain care. Bureaucratic complexity in interactions between citizens and governments can constitute an important obstacle to the delivery of basic services as well as to the ultimate objectives of eliminating poverty and promoting shared prosperity.

The 2004 WDR analyzed the mechanisms of service delivery and discussed the accountability relationships between citizens, service providers, and governments (World Bank 2003). Following the 2004 WDR publication, the World Bank promoted several data collection initiatives to measure service quality and performance in schools and health facilities as well as initiatives to analyze accountability systems (Dehn at al. 2003; Gauthier and Reinikka 2008; Fiszbein et al. 2011; Martin and Pimhidzai 2013). Most of these initiatives have focused on measuring inputs as well as service provider efforts and skills. They have not addressed issues such as administrative and cognitive costs for citizens to access services.

Another key element in measures of service delivery is accountability and the presence of mechanisms for grievance and redress. Evidence shows that accountability mechanisms improve the quality of service delivery.

> 1 <u>See the survey by Djankov (2009).</u>

4 | P a g e