手法を比較

	Administrative Burden Analysis	Street-Level Bureaucracy Analysis
分野	Public Administration	Public Administration
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2015	1980
提唱者	Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd & Hope Harvey	Michael Lipsky
種類	Cost-typology policy analysis	Qualitative frontline-implementation analysis
原典	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.	Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN: 9780871545442
別名	Administrative Burden Assessment, Learning Psychological and Compliance Cost Analysis, Citizen-State Burden Analysis	Frontline Discretion Analysis, Street-Level Discretion Study, Lipsky Street-Level Bureaucracy Framework
関連	4	4
概要	Administrative burden analysis examines the costs that individuals experience when they interact with the state to claim benefits, comply with obligations or access public services. Articulated by Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd and Hope Harvey in their influential 2015 article, the framework decomposes these costs into three types: learning costs of finding out about and understanding a program, psychological costs of stress and stigma, and compliance costs of the time, paperwork and effort required to participate. The central claim is that burdens are consequential — they suppress program take-up and access — and that they are often the product of political choices rather than mere administrative accident. The analysis makes these hidden costs visible and traces who bears them.	Street-level bureaucracy analysis examines how frontline public employees — teachers, police officers, caseworkers, benefits clerks and nurses — exercise discretion when they deliver services directly to citizens. Coined by Michael Lipsky in his 1980 book Street-Level Bureaucracy, the approach argues that the decisions these workers make under conditions of scarce resources and conflicting demands effectively become public policy. The method studies how routines, coping strategies and informal rationing shape what citizens actually receive, often diverging from the policy written by legislators. Its goal is to explain the gap between policy as designed and policy as experienced at the counter.