Reducing bureaucracy for whom? Why digital government must start with people

Less bureaucracy through digital government: this is a widely held promise. But digital does not automatically mean simple. Many people encounter obstacles when dealing with public authorities and therefore do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. Pascale-Catherine Kirklies and Christian Geiger from the Institute for Public Sector Transformation at BFH show where these administrative burdens come from and how public administrations can reduce it.

Digital does not automatically mean simpler

Switzerland is making progress in digital government: 45 % of the population now handle all or almost all of their dealings with the authorities online, compared with 36 % in 2021. This is shown by the National E-Government Study 2025. In addition, the state-issued e-ID is due to be introduced in the course of 2027. It will allow people to prove their identity online securely and with state recognition. Combined with access solutions such as AGOV, such tools can help make digital public services more secure and easier to use.

However, digital services are not automatically used. Many administrative procedures, such as registering a change of address or obtaining certificates, are still carried out offline. The most common reason: 53 % of non-users find it too complicated to find the right service. A further 38 % do not trust data protection, and 35 % consider registration too time-consuming (see Figure 1).

Digitalisation can remove such hurdles – or merely shift complexity from the counter to the screen (Peeters, 2023). Whether digital services actually make things simpler also depends on the users’ individual circumstances. Not everyone has the same skills to find, understand and use online procedures independently. The digital divide therefore concerns not only access to devices and the internet, but also digital skills (digital literacy). If offline access channels are reduced at the same time, there is a risk that precisely those people who already struggle most with digital services will be left behind.

Administrative burden: when dealing with the authorities becomes an obstacle course

Public administration research refers to the onerous experiences people have in their interactions with the state as administrative burden (Herd & Moynihan, 2019; Moynihan et al., 2015). It distinguishes three types of burden, conceptualised as costs:

• Learning costs: searching for information, clarifying entitlements and responsibilities, finding the required documents.
• Compliance costs: meeting requirements, filling in forms, obtaining proof or paying fees.
• Psychological costs: experiencing stress, frustration, loss of autonomy or stigma.

The reasons for not using digital government services can be mapped onto these types of costs (Figure 1). The burden often begins before the actual procedure: anyone who cannot find the right service or does not trust data security never reaches the digital service in the first place.

These burdens described often arise unintentionally. Public services are designed according to the logic of organisations, responsibilities and legal requirements, and not necessarily from the perspective of the people who use them.

Figure 1: Why people do not use digital government services Respondents who do not use digital government services (2024: n = 471), multiple answers possible. Source: National E-Government Study 2025 (DVS/SECO), pp. 24–25; assignment to cost types: own illustration.

Those who need the most support often face the highest hurdles

Administrative burdens are also unequally distributed. People with weaker language skills, fewer digital skills or less support from those around them often find it harder to navigate the administrative maze (Buyannemekh et al., 2026; Christensen et al., 2020; Döring & Madsen, 2022; Kirklies & Sudan, 2025).

Such hurdles have particularly serious consequences for social benefits. In most Swiss cantons, health insurance premium subsidies must be actively applied for. According to a BFH study, around 19 % of those entitled in the canton of Basel-Stadt did not receive a premium subsidy (Hümbelin et al., 2021). They pay the full health insurance premium themselves, which can affect their well-being and social participation (Bell et al., 2023). Administrative burden is therefore more than a nuisance: they can lead people to effectively forgo rights to which they are entitled and, in the long run, undermine trust in the state (Cui & Osborne, 2023).

Whether applicants are entitled to state benefits is assessed on an individual basis. This assessment is necessary to protect against benefit fraud (Baekgaard et al., 2021). It becomes problematic, however, when requirements make access to benefits disproportionately difficult. Research then speaks of policymaking by other means: more difficult access conditions steer the use of public services without formally changing entitlements (Herd & Moynihan, 2019). The key question is therefore: which hurdles are necessary, and which unnecessarily exclude people who are entitled?

Reducing bureaucracy must also reduce the burden on the public

The current political debate in Switzerland focuses mainly on the growth of the federal administration (Avenir Suisse 2026) and the federal government’s savings programme. For businesses, relief is enshrined in law: when drafting new legislation, the federal government must estimate regulatory costs and examine options for relief (Art. 4–5 UEG, Federal Act on Relief for Businesses). There is no comparable obligation regarding the administrative burden on the public, even though it can be measured with scientifically validated survey instruments (e.g. Kang et al., 2025).

Moreover, fewer rules or administrative staff do not automatically mean less burden: if an advice centre closes, people’s learning costs may rise. Efforts to reduce bureaucracy should therefore be measured not only by how much effort the administration saves, but also by how much effort people are spared.

Solutions: three burden reduction strategies to improve access to public services

How can public administrations reduce administrative burden? Research distinguishes three types of burden reduction strategies (Benish et al., 2023), all of which can also be supported digitally:

• Distributive strategies (shifting the burden Instead of requiring people to provide documents, the administration obtains existing data itself. Under the once-only principle, data are provided only once and then shared between authorities. Automatic premium subsidies based on tax data and pre-filled forms also reduce the effort required.
• Process-related strategies (simplifying procedures): fewer documents, comprehensible forms and shorter processing times reduce unnecessary steps. eUmzugCH allows people to report a move online; single access solutions such as AGOV or the e-ID can avoid separate registrations.
• Relational strategies (improving interactions): respectful treatment reduces psychological costs and strengthens autonomy. This includes information in Easy Language, contact persons who can be reached, and secure messenger solutions such as Bontrebo in social services.

All three strategies pursue the same goal: people should have as little effort as possible to claim the public services to which they are legally entitled. This requires the user perspective to be embedded as a core competence within public administration.

Four recommendations for practice

• Simplify first, then digitalise: reduce forms, process steps and documentation requirements before moving them online.
• Test with real users: have procedures tested by people who are unfamiliar with the internal processes, and record where they drop out.
• Keep several access channels open: complement digital services with personal and telephone support.
• Measure the burden: regularly survey how the public experiences administrative procedures.

Outlook: AI must also reduce the burden on people

Artificial intelligence marks the next wave of government digitalisation. Automated eligibility checks could lower hurdles, for example if benefits are paid out proactively, without an application. However, it may be mainly simple cases that benefit, while people in more complex life situations continue to face burdensome procedures.  Whether digitalisation or AI: what matters is not how many processes are handled online or how many administrative resources are saved. What matters is whether people can more easily access the benefits to which they are entitled.

Note on the original article

This article is based in part on Kirklies, P.-C. & Geiger, C. (2026). Verwaltungsprozesse als Belastung für die Bevölkerung: Wie staatliche Institutionen positiver wahrgenommen werden können [Administrative processes as a burden on the population: how public institutions can be perceived more positively]. Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation (zfo), 3, 125–129.

References

Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & Thomsen, M. K. (2021). Why Do Policymakers Support Administrative Burdens? The Roles of Deservingness, Political Ideology, and Personal Experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa033

Bell, E., Christensen, J., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (2023). Health in citizen-state interactions: How physical and mental health problems shape experiences of administrative burden and reduce take-up. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13568

Benish, A., Tarshish, N., Holler, R., & Gal, J. (2023). Types of administrative burden reduction strategies: Who, what, and how. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muad028. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad028

Buyannemekh, B., Luna, D. E., Picazo-Vela, S., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2026). Citizens’ perspectives on administrative burden in digital government services. Government Information Quarterly, 43(3), 102165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2026.102165

Christensen, J., Aarøe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020). Human Capital and Administrative Burden: The Role of Cognitive Resources in Citizen-State Interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13134

Cui, T., & Osborne, S. P. (2023). New development: Value destruction in public service delivery—a process model and its implications. Public Money & Management, 43(2), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2126645

Döring, M., & Madsen, J. K. (2022). Mitigating Psychological Costs—The Role of Citizens’ Administrative Literacy and Social Capital. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13472

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Hümbelin, O., Richard, T., Schuwey, C., Luchsinger, L., & Fluder, R. (2021). Nichtbezug von

bedarfsabhängigen Sozialleistungen im Kanton Basel-Stadt: Ausmass und Beweggründe [Non-take-up of means-tested social benefits in the canton of Basel-Stadt: extent and motives; report commissioned by the Amt für Sozialbeiträge Basel-Stadt]. Berner Fachhochschule. https://www.bs.ch/news/2021-studie-nichtbezug-von-bedarfsabhaengigen-sozialleistungen-im-kanton-basel-stadt-ausmass-und-beweggruende

Kang, I., Sievert, M., & Na, C. (2025). Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Administrative Burden, With Broad Applicability Beyond Direct Policy Clients. Governance, 38(3), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70026

Kirklies, P.-C., & Sudan, I. (2025). Navigating Administrative Burden: The Role of Bureaucratic Self-Efficacy and Social Capital Among Ukrainian Asylum Seekers. Social Policy and Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746425101061

Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009

Peeters, R. (2023). Digital Administrative Burdens: An Agenda for Analyzing the Citizen Experience of Digital Bureaucratic Encounters. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac024