Abstract
Sludge – the unnecessary friction that can complicate or delay access to programmes and services – may undermine the fairness and effectiveness of public policies. Drawing on a recently published paper (Lades et al., 2025), this policy paper presents insights from a nationally representative survey (n = 1,591) on how Irish citizens experience and tolerate different types of sludge. The results show that people feel most vulnerable to outdated websites, unhelpful staff, and jargon-filled communication. These are also the types of sludge that are viewed as least acceptable. Vulnerability to sludge is concentrated among those with poorer health, lower administrative literacy, and those who lack mental energy. Sludge, therefore, is not a neutral by-product of bureaucracy: it amplifies inequality by placing the greatest strain on those least equipped to bear it. Addressing sludge should thus be a priority for Irish policymaking from the perspective of both efficiency and fairness.
Everyday friction and the citizen experience
A central goal of Ireland’s public service reform is to make government more accessible, efficient, and people-centred. Strategies such as Better Public Services, Civil Service Renewal 2030, and Connecting Government 2030 set out a vision for high-quality, integrated, and inclusive public service provision through digitalisation and innovation at scale.
However, digital transformation alone does not guarantee a smooth citizen experience. For most people, day-to-day interactions are still too frequently hindered by websites that fail to load, forms that must be printed twice, or unanswered emails about delayed payments. Small frictions such as these can accumulate into significant frustration and may disproportionately affect individuals with limited time, mental energy, or administrative literacy.
The behavioural public policy concept of “sludge” (Sunstein, 2021; Thaler, 2018) captures these unnecessary frictions. Sludge describes procedures or processes that waste time, sap energy, or discourage participation. While Ireland has embraced “nudge” strategies to promote positive behaviours (such as organ donation and pension auto-enrolment), less attention has been paid to identifying and reducing sludge within administrative systems. Understanding which forms of friction are most burdensome, and for whom, is increasingly important as Ireland seeks to improve the quality and accessibility of its public services.
A recent study (Lades et al., 2025) contributes to that effort by analysing how citizens perceive their vulnerability to, and acceptability of, different forms of sludge and how behavioural factors influence these experiences.
Vulnerability to and acceptability of sludge in Ireland
To explore how Irish citizens experience and evaluate administrative friction, the study conducted a nationally representative online survey of adults aged 18 and older (n = 1,591). The survey focused on self-reported vulnerability to, and acceptability of, different types of “sludge”. Participants were asked to imagine completing a generic task, such as obtaining a product, service, or information, and to evaluate ten different types of administrative procedures associated with that task, as described in Table 1. The task itself was hypothetical to allow comparisons across a standard set of procedures while keeping focus on the friction itself rather than task-specific challenges.
| To carry out a task… |
| … you rely on information from a private company’s website. Parts of the website are outdated and some links are broken. |
| … you must ask some questions to employees from a private company. The employees are unfriendly and seem to be annoyed by your questions. |
| … you must read and understand documents provided by a private company. The documents are written in complex language and use a lot of jargon. |
| … you rely on information from a private company’s website. The website is full of information and hard to navigate. |
| … you must wait several weeks for a response from a private company without progress updates. |
| … you must attend a 10-minute in-person meeting at the office of a private company. You cannot choose the date or the time of the in-person appointment. |
| … you are required to follow a process designed by a private company. The process consists of multiple steps. At any given step, you are not informed of what is required in future steps. |
| … you must complete a form provided by a private company. The form requests that you list all of your previous addresses. |
| … you must print out and send a form in the post to a private company. There is no online option available. |
| … you must provide sensitive information such as your religious beliefs and sexual orientation to a private company. |
Table 1: Ten Different Types of Sludge. Adapted from Lades et al. (2025).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one, the procedures were framed as coming from a government agency; in the other, they were presented as originating from a private company, as in Table 1. This randomisation enabled a comparison of perceptions of public and private sector sludge. For each task, participants answered four questions measuring perceived difficulty, hassle, frustration, and likelihood of non-completion (together forming a “vulnerability” score) and two questions assessing the perceived acceptability of the process (“The procedure to complete this task is acceptable” and “The effort needed to complete this task is fair”). Responses were recorded on five-point Likert scales.
The survey was conducted through the panel provider Dynata in October 2024. After excluding duplicates and failed attention checks, the final sample consisted of 1,591 participants, 57% female, with a mean age of 44.3. Household income was broadly representative, with 48.7% reporting net household income of €50,000 or less. Participants were drawn from urban, suburban, and rural areas, with educational attainment ranging from lower secondary to postgraduate degrees.
Key Findings
People felt most vulnerable to broken or confusing websites, to encounters with unhelpful or rude staff, and to documents written in dense, formal language. In fact, the sludge types in Table 1 are sorted by respondent vulnerability, from highest to lowest. By contrast, routine tasks such as posting a form or providing sensitive information (such as religion or sexual orientation) were less troubling.
Figure 1 ranks the sludge types by average vulnerability for public and private sources separately. Broken websites and unhelpful staff stand out clearly, showing that the most frustrating experiences occur when either the digital or human interface fails. The difference between public and private settings was small: citizens dislike friction wherever it arises.
Figure 1: Vulnerability to sludge predicted by type of sludge only and no other control variables based on multi-linear regressions with 1,591 individuals and 15,910 observations, depending on whether the sludge emerges from either the private or the public sector (Source: Lades et al., 2025).
Vulnerability, however, was not evenly distributed. Some people consistently reported higher difficulty across all scenarios. The findings show that those with poorer physical or mental health, older individuals and those living in rural areas report having a higher vulnerability to sludge. Moreover, highly educated participants expressed greater frustration, possibly because they expect more efficiency.
Acceptability ratings mirrored vulnerability. As illustrated in Figure 2,people found outdated websites and unhelpful staff the least acceptable, while tolerating paper forms and routine tasks. Public-sector versions of scenarios were judged slightly less acceptable, perhaps because citizens hold government to higher standards of fairness. Given that the results are similar for both vulnerability and acceptability, below we focus on how vulnerability scores vary depending on behavioural factors.
Figure 2: Acceptability of sludge predicted by type of sludge only and no other control variables based on multi-linear regressions with 1,591 individuals and 15,910 observations. (Source: Lades et al., 2025).
Behavioural factors and how they shape vulnerability to sludge
Not all citizens experience bureaucracy in the same way, even when they face identical processes. Part of this difference lies in behavioural and psychological factors, such as how confident people feel when handling official documents, how much time or energy they have available, and how easily they can motivate themselves to complete administrative tasks.
The study examined five behavioural dimensions using self-reported agreement on 5-point Likert scales, as summarised in Table 2.
| Behavioural dimension | Statements (Agreement measured on 5-point Likert scale) |
|---|---|
| Administrative literacy | • I usually understand the content of administrative letters, documents, and emails I receive from the government or private companies. • I usually understand the rules, requirements, or contract details that apply to me as a citizen or customer. • I keep myself informed about changes in regulations or contract details. |
| Procrastination tendency | • I often put things off for so long that it has negative consequences. • When I must start a task, I often end up doing something else. • I often postpone things until tomorrow. • I often hurry to finish things at the last minute. |
| Time scarcity | • I cannot deal with important things properly due to a lack of time. |
| Mental energy scarcity | • I cannot deal with important things properly due to a lack of mental energy. |
| Financial scarcity | • I cannot deal with important things properly because I am busy trying to keep on top of my financial situation. |
Table 2: Behavioural dimensions measured in the study.
As shown in Figure 3, administrative literacy and mental energy scarcity are the strongest predictors of how people experience sludge. People with greater administrative literacy, that is those who feel confident understanding the content of official documents and stay informed on changes in regulations, tend to be less vulnerable to sludge. They understand what is being asked and can navigate complexity without feeling lost. By contrast, those who experience mental energy scarcity report much higher vulnerability to sludge. This suggests that cognitive strain, as much as socioeconomic status, determines whether the difficulty of an administrative process hinders completion.
Figure 3: Behavioural predictors of self-reported vulnerability to sludge from multi-level linear regressions with 1,591 individuals and 15,910 observations controlling for demographics and mental and physical health. The blue circles illustrate the results of five regressions that include only the respective behavioural predictor (i.e. without controlling for the other four behavioural parameters). (Source: Lades et al., 2025).
A closer look at Figure 4 shows that administrative literacy plays a protective role across almost all types of sludge but especially when documents are written in complex language and jargon. For citizens with lower literacy, jargon-heavy text is not just inconvenient; it may be exclusionary. In contrast, tasks involving straightforward information, like providing sensitive personal details, were less dependent on administrative literacy levels.
Figure 4: Interaction effects predicting self-reported vulnerability to sludge by the interaction between administrative literacy and sludge types based on multi-linear regressions with 1,591 individuals and 15,910 observations. (Source: Lades et al., 2025).
Designing for everyone
Administrative systems are often designed for the “average” user, someone with stable internet, clear headspace, and time to complete forms. But many citizens operate under constraints of time, health, and mental energy.
Policies that reduce friction improve the experience for everyone. But those most constrained will benefit the most from these simplifications. Achieving these improvements can involve user-testing with diverse groups, plain-language communication and readability checks, logical sequencing of steps, automatic progress saving, or simple confirmation messages that reassure users their submission is complete.
Digital design should not assume universal literacy or confidence. Assisted-digital options, helplines, and local access points remain vital, especially for rural users and older adults. Human contact also matters: respondents ranked “unfriendly staff” among the most harmful forms of sludge. Staff who convey empathy and clarity can turn frustration into reassurance; those who appear indifferent can magnify stress. Providing training that develops empathy and clear communication can transform citizen experiences at relatively low cost.
Making sludge visible and managing friction
Because sludge often hides in the fine details of administrative processes, the first step in addressing it is to make it visible. Public bodies could introduce sludge audits: systematic reviews of citizen journeys through key services to identify unnecessary effort or delays (NSW Behavioural Insights Unit, 2024; Shahab and Lades, 2024; Sunstein, 2021). Before launching or revising a service, teams might consider:
- How much time or mental effort does this step require?
- Who is most likely to struggle with it?
- Can the same objective be met with less friction?
Audits could also track completion times, dropout rates, and repeat contacts, offering a behavioural perspective on administrative performance. Embedding short “How easy was this?” prompts in online service portals would generate real-time feedback to support continuous improvement.
These measures can complement existing efficiency indicators. For example, departments might report not only average processing times but also the proportion of users who abandon an application midway. Treating accessibility as a measurable outcome, rather than an anecdotal issue, helps strengthen accountability, and publishing simplified versions of these data would signal a commitment to transparency.
Some friction will always be necessary to verify identity, or ensure fairness, or hold people accountable. But even essential steps should be communicated clearly. It might well be the case that people are far more willing to accept required effort when they understand why it is needed.
Conclusion
Sludge and administrative burdens are pervasive in public and private settings (Herd & Moynihan, 2019) and increasingly receive worldwide interest as governments and international organisations aim to understand how to identify and reduce sludge to improve processes (NSW Behavioural Insights Unit, 2024; OECD, 2024). The findings presented here indicate that some forms of sludge are perceived as more harmful than others, and that vulnerability to these burdens is unevenly distributed across the population. It is closely linked to behavioural and cognitive capacity: individuals with lower administrative literacy, poorer health, or limited mental energy are most affected, often the very citizens that public policy aims to support.
Ireland’s reform agenda for improving public services provides a strong foundation for tackling sludge systematically. Reducing unnecessary friction in administrative systems has potential benefits for both efficiency and equity. As Ireland continues to implement its digital and public service reform strategies, attention to the design and usability of services will be important to ensure that they are accessible to all users.
Several policy considerations emerge from our study in this context. To reduce administrative friction and improve accessibility, services should be designed and tested with diverse users, including those with lower administrative literacy, limited digital access, or other constraints such as time, health, or cognitive load. This includes plain-language communication, logical step sequencing, progress saving, and clear confirmation messages, alongside assisted-digital options, helplines, and local access points where needed. Frontline staff training in empathy and clear communication can transform frustrating interactions into reassuring experiences. Service performance should be monitored using both efficiency and behavioural indicators, such as completion rates, dropout rates, user effort, and perceived ease of use, while periodic sludge audits can identify unnecessary friction and highlight opportunities for improvement. Additionally, publishing simplified metrics signals transparency and accountability.
Continued monitoring and evaluation of these factors can help ensure that Ireland’s digital transformation and public service reforms advance not only efficiency but also fairness, accessibility, and overall service quality.
For more information about the academic paper, please visit:
References
Herd, P. and Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. Russell Sage Foundation.
Lades, L. K., Samahita, M., Martin, L., Sunstein, C. R., & Baekgaard, M. (2025). Vulnerability to and acceptability of different types of sludge. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-30.
NSW Behavioural Insights Unit. (2024). The NSW Government Sludge Audit Method Guide. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/behavioural-insights-unit/sludge-toolkit/download-sludge-audit-method-guide
OECD. (2024). Fixing frictions: ‘Sludge audits’ around the world. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/5e9bb35c-en
Shahab, S., & Lades, L. K. (2024). Sludge and transaction costs. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(2), 327-348.
Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Sludge: What Stops Us from Getting Things Done and what to Do about it. MIT Press.
Thaler, R. H. (2018). Nudge, not sludge. Science, 361(6401), 431–431.