A rule is divisive when its legitimacy is contested and divisive rules are an enduring theme of public administration research. For over three decades, this research has been shaped by red tape theory, which conceptualizes divisive rules as those which consume an organization's resources but fail to advance its goals. Recently, however, the administrative burden framework, which prioritizes the impact of divisive rules on citizens and links their origins to political motives, has grown in popularity. We take stock of the last decade of research on red tape and administrative burden using the meta-narrative review methodology. We identify five narratives within the two research traditions and discuss their distinct research questions, theoretical mechanisms, privileged actors, and rule assumptions, as well as their strengths, limitations, and practical implications. These insights are leveraged to analyze the origins, impact, and ontology of divisive public sector rules. We also raise research questions with cross-cutting relevance to the red tape and administrative burden research traditions.

中文翻译：

---

分裂性公共部门规则的本体论、起源和影响：繁文缛节和行政负担文献的元叙事回顾

当规则的合法性受到质疑时，规则就会引起分歧，而分歧性规则是公共行政研究的一个持久主题。三十多年来，这项研究一直受到繁文缛节理论的影响，该理论将分裂规则概念化为消耗组织资源但未能推进其目标的规则。然而，最近，优先考虑分裂规则对公民的影响并将其起源与政治动机联系起来的行政负担框架越来越受欢迎。我们使用元叙事审查方法评估了过去十年关于繁文缛节和行政负担的研究。我们在两种研究传统中确定了五种叙述，并讨论了它们不同的研究问题、理论机制、特权参与者和规则假设，以及它们的优势、局限性、和实际意义。这些见解被用来分析分裂性公共部门规则的起源、影响和本体论。我们还提出了与繁文缛节和行政负担研究传统具有交叉相关性的研究问题。