Promises to cut “red tape” in US government bureaucracy are a perennial part of politicians’ campaign promises. But what do we really mean when we talk about “red tape”? Randall S. Davis uncovers the psychological foundations of red tape, writing that people can consider that a regulation is “red tape” when they see it as a threat, and react with anxiety, anger, or frustration. If policymakers can better understand the emotional roots to these reactions to red tape, then they may be able to design strategies to help employees to better cope with the effects of regulations. 

Even in times of rampant political contention, the endemic nature of red tape in American governance seems a point of partisan agreement. Therefore, it stands to reason that getting rid of red tape will solve all that ails American governance. This begs the question: which rules count as red tape? As it turns out, the devil is in the details. Surface level agreement on eliminating red tape tends to erode when policy makers try to sort out which rules to cut.

The challenges of cutting specific instances of red tape arise due to our limited understanding of its micro-level foundations in people’s emotional and thought – i.e. their psychological – processes. Given this lack of understanding, it is helpful to think about red tape as the product of a psychological process. A psychological process theory of red tape can inspire analysis designed to relieve some of the biggest challenges of red tape. This theory allows us to understand why disagreement on specific instances of red tape occurs and what policymakers can do about it.

An example of a red tape controversy.

Ignoring psychological foundations perpetuates the false story that it’s easy to identify and eliminate red tape. Simply audit rules and regulations, calculate costs of rules relative to the benefits, eliminate overly costly rules, and reap the rewards. Unfortunately, that story oversimplifies the process and fails to address glaring disagreements regarding red tape. An example can help us to appreciate the complexity.

Government officials are currently engaged in a controversial battle over employment rules for federal employees. In 2022, Sponsors in the US House of Representatives and Senate jointly introduced legislation partially designed to curtail rules protecting government employees from being fired. Proponents of the legislation argue that these rules are tantamount to red tape. Red tape arises because employment rules protect underperforming workers, thereby limiting accountability. For advocates of reform eliminating these personnel rules results in good governance because it reinforces bureaucratic responsiveness and efficiency.

In response to personnel reform legislation, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed a rule that seeks to uphold civil service protections for federal employees. Advocates claim that civil service rules are not red tape. Personnel rules protecting against termination are valuable, they argue, given due process protections that reinforce professionalism and political neutrality. In this argument, salvaging personnel rules results in good governance by advancing expertise and limiting political interference in administrative decisions.

So, are civil service protections red tape? To answer that question, we need to account for political preferences and the psychology of red tape.

The psychology of red tape.

Given the political nature of government rules and regulations, and the competing interests they reinforce, red tape is a sense making question. Red tape can be viewed as a psychological process that informs how people interpret rules and the labels they attach to them.

First, people must learn about rule expectations and determine whether those expectations threaten their values or political preferences. If rules or regulations contradict their preferred values, people will feel burdened by them. Burden, in this story, means the degree of subjective threat in rule expectations. Second, people attempt to cope with these feelings of burden. When coping strategies fail, people tend to get frustrated, angry, anxious, or depressed. Red tape, then, becomes the label people attach to the emotions they experience after failed attempts to cope with threatening rule expectations.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

What people do in response to rules or regulations they label as red tape depends on two factors. The type of emotion that characterizes their red tape perceptions and how they think their behavior might relieve those feelings. Those who define red tape as anxiety or depression are likely to withdraw. After all, one primary strategy to relieve depression or anxiety is to avoid the object that caused it in the first place. Those who define red tape in terms of their anger or frustration are more likely to lash out by violating the rule all together. If something makes us angry, we often break it.

How a psychological understanding of red tape can inform policymakers. 

Understanding the psychological foundations of red tape is important for policy makers in a few ways. First, policy makers must realize that red tape has emotional roots. Contention around the existence of red tape is the norm in government, but it doesn’t result from a debate over the extent of rules. It comes from the use of rules to record the winners and losers of a political dispute. The losers view those rules as threatening, and they respond by feeling angry or frustrated. Given politics is about sorting out competing interests, red tape in government cannot be eliminated.

Second, policy makers should recognize that an incomplete understanding of the psychology of red tape has an economic cost too. The more rules encourage voluntary compliance, the cheaper they become. Absent voluntary compliance, the monitoring and enforcement costs of rules increase drastically. While any given rule might seem objectively low-cost, the interests served in rules may threaten, frustrate, and anger those expected to comply. Angry and frustrated people must be forced to follow the rules they view as red tape.

Finally, managers of government organizations should realize that there are cognitive and behavioral strategies to address the costs of red tape. Regardless of partisan proclivities, all policy makers will advocate for rules or regulations some government employees view as red tape. Managers will consistently preside over underperforming organizations if employees are unable to regulate their emotions. Managers should help employees recognize the sources of distress and evaluate whether rule consequences have been overexaggerated. These strategies can reduce monitoring costs.

That is not to say that all rules and regulations are valuable. Some have undoubtedly outlived their use. Yet, a significant amount of ‘red tape’ is the consequence of a psychological process that follows from how people emotionally respond to threat.

• This article is based on the paper, ‘’Feeling out’ the rules: A psychological process theory of red tape’, in Public Administration Review.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://bit.ly/3UlhU36