Conference Agenda

While burdens can fulfill legitimate and meaningful functions in a welfare state, they can be especially consequential for those lacking sufficient resources to cope with the related costs. Literature on administrative burdens shows that these procedures are more likely to be applied to people who are politically powerless or socially unpopular and often significantly affect those with fewer financial resources and limited human capital (Moynihan et al., 2015). Intersectionality in Administrative Burden is often ignored in the research, even though the idea of administrative burden has been widely applied to study oppressed groups, particularly the unique challenges faced by immigrant women. Immigrant women who are at the crossroads of immigration status and particularly vulnerable are substantially exposed to these burdens. This study delves into the experience of immigrant women from outside the EU/EEA (students and workers) in Finland and Denmark concerning administrative burdens in Immigration services. We address the question, how do immigrant women from outside the EU/EEA (students and workers) experience administrative burdens in immigration services through the lens of Nordic Governance? What do these experiences reveal about inclusion and exclusion within democratic governance? In the Finnish case, we conducted 30 interviews with immigrant women based in Helsinki (n=15) and Turku (n=15) as primary data. In the Danish case, we use multiple secondary data sources from existing studies on this topic. Aiming to address gaps in the literature and contribute to the theoretical advancement of administrative burden theory for immigrants, specifically women.

This paper examines the digitalization of objection committees (Widerspruchsausschüsse) in the German pension insurance system. A current reform aims to replace paper-based workflows with digital document provision for volunteer committee members - leaving organizational routines untouched. While seemingly modest, this change exposes underlying tensions in the committees. Empirical insights from interviews and group discussions with volunteer representatives show divergent role conceptions and concurrent digitalization demands: some view themselves as independent co-decision-makers demanding deeper digital access compared to the current situation, while others see their role as limited to verifying administrative proposals, satisfied with (digitized) continuity. The analysis situates these tensions within the paradoxes of collaborative governance, particularly the clash between participatory ideals and pragmatic power imbalances.