\(^*\) Graduate Student Coauthor
Bae, J.. (2025). “Unpacking Welfare Deservingness Theory: Evidence from the Perceived Deservingness of Gig Workers.” Policy Studies Journal, Accepted
Bae, J., & Haselswerdt, J. (2025). “The Safety Net and the Gig Economy: Policy Attitudes and Political Participation.” Perspectives on Politics, [http://doi:10.1017/S1537592725103411]
Bae, J.. (2025). “The effects of the expanded pandemic unemployment assistance on non‐standard workers’ financial and mental well-being”. Risk Management & Insurance Review, 1–20.[https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.70007]
Hong, I., Bae, J., & Choi, Y. J. (2024). “Scaling up policy entrepreneurship strategies from the local to the national level: the unlikely rise of basic income from agenda universe to decision agenda.” Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1–17. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2354636]
Bae, J., & Choi, YJ. (2017). “Causes and Consequences of Hanjin Shipping Bankruptcy: Dilemma of Developmental Liberalist Regime in Industrial Restructuring.” Journal of Governmental Studies, 23(3), 193-227.[Journal Article]
Choi, YJ., & Bae, J. (2016). “Designing Future Social Security: Critical Review of Mid- to Long-term Social Security Planning.” Korean Social Security Studies, 32(2), 271-299.[Journal Article]
Due to the onerous experience, high levels of administrative burden reduce the rate of program take-up (Herd and Moynihan, 2019). Despite their costs, both in terms of implementation and reduced program uptake, administrative burdens serve to provide program legitimacy. Existing studies find that high levels of administrative burden increase a program’s favorability, especially among Republicans (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2022; Keiser and Miller, 2020). However, the underlying mechanism for why administrative burdens increase program favorability remains unclear. We seek to advance the literature by studying under what contexts people support higher administrative burdens and increase program favorability. We hypothesize that support for administrative burdens is context dependent and differs on how an individual construes the world using their heuristics. To our knowledge, we are among the first to study the comparative effect of different contexts on support for administrative burden. Our study not only have practical implementations for public policy implementation, but also contributes to the academic literature by helping us better understand the underlying mechanism between administrative burden and program favorability.
Bae, J., & Jung, Y *. “Backsourcing and Insourcing in Housing Welfare Delivery System”
Bae, J. “Are Gig Jobs Stepping Stones or Dead Ends? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments”
Bae, J., & Shan, Z. “How Program Performance and Racial Cues Shape Administrative Burden Design”
Kim, EJ., Choi, IH., Sun, BY., Sung, K., Bae, J., Kim, SJ., & Yang, NJ. (2018) “A Study for the Re-establishment of Sustainable Care Policy(Ⅱ)”. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute. [Summary of the Research Report in English]
Kim, EJ., Choi, IH., Song, HJ., Bae, HJ., Choi, JH, Bae, J., & Sung, K. (2018) “A Study on the Status of Sole-Parent Families”. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute. [Link]
Choi, YJ., Jun, M\(^*\), Bae, J, & Yoon, S\(^*\) . (2018). “Ch.12. Why is Uncertainty Unequal without Government’s Precautionary Principle?: The Case of Toxic Humidifier Disinfectant.” In Moon, MJ.(eds), The Quality of Government and Life (pp.361-398).[Link]
Choi, YJ., Jun, M\(^*\), Bae, J, & Yoon, S\(^*\) . (2017). “Ch.10. Evidence-based Policy-making in an Uncertain World: The Case of the Nuclear Power Plant in Kori, South Korea.” In Moon, MJ.(eds), Case Studies: Public Management and Public Policy (pp.257-288). [Link]