Representative bureaucracy and unconscious bias: Exploring the unconscious dimension of active representation

Abstract

Representative bureaucracy theory explores the effects of representation on bureaucracies, but less attention has been paid to date as to how agents represent values or interests. Addressing this omission, this article highlights the unconscious dimension of active representation and, more specifically, the role of unconscious bias in representation. Unconscious bias has received limited attention to date in public administration, but has clear relevance for understanding how representation occurs at the individual level. This article proposes a framework for understanding unconscious bias. Drawing on Bourdieu's habitus, but making explicit its unconscious dimension, I argue that unconscious bias enhances our understanding of how active representation occurs in bureaucracies today. The article applies these insights to the case of unconscious gender bias as found in the Australian Public Service (APS) and concludes by exploring the methodological challenges involved in building a research agenda into tackling unconscious bias.

A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation

“…Behavioral coping happens in social interaction or individually Van Loon and Jakobsen 2017). Frontline workers often use heuristics in order to evaluate the deservingness, truthfulness and trustworthiness of clients, leading to an unequal treatment of different clients (Akram 2018;Harrits 2019;Hong 2017;Pedersen et al 2018;Raaphorst and van de Walle 2018;Thomann and Rapp 2018).…”

“…Affinity bias can result in differential treatment of clients in the allocation of sanctions or resources, depending on whether they share characterstics with the street-level bureaucrat, such as their gender, or their cultural, social or ethnic background. Literature on representative bureaucracy provides evidence of inequitable treatment of service users on the basis of race, gender and class and its effects (Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017;Hong 2017;Akram 2018). Affinity bias may also be something which develops during repeated social interactions with clients over time, or in the course of an encounter, as trust grows between frontline workers and clients.…”

“…Frontline workers prefer clients that are similar to them, and they resort to stereotypes to classify clients-with consequences for social equity, democracy, and the rule of law (Epp et al 2017). Arguably, these insights reinforce the importance of passive and active representation, so that the interactions between clients and bureaucrats do justice to the diversity of identities in the population (Akram 2018;Hong 2017;Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017). Moreover, unconscious stereotypes and resulting discrimination may require strategies to mitigate bias in frontline workers.…”

Representative bureaucracy in European Union agencies

“…class interestsin bureaucracies. A later study by Mosher (1982) emphasized the necessity of having administrators not only with different social origins, but also with diverse values, knowledge and abilities within organizations (Akram, 2018). More recently, RB schol-!…”

Behavioural governance in the policy process: introduction to the special issue

“…BPA research explores cognitive and decision biases amongst bureaucrats, as well as interactions between bureaucrats and citizens, highlighting issues such as policy alienation, coping, and the processing of performance information by both bureaucrats and citizens (see for example Baekgaard et al, 2019;Baviskar & Winter, 2017;Borrelli & Lindberg, 2018;Hallsworth et al, 2018;Harrits, 2019;James & Van Ryzin, 2017;Loyens, 2015;Thomann et al, 2018;Tummers, 2017). Work in the BPA tradition also explores bureaucratic stereotyping (Harrits, 2019;Moseley & Thomann, 2021), discrimination (Akram, 2018;Hardin & Banaji, 2013;Olsen et al, 2021), and the psychological effects of public service failure. New research is also emerging on how to mitigate cognitive and decision biases amongst actors in the bureaucracy including civil servants and public managers (Bellé & Cantarelli, 2017;Brest, 2013;Cantarelli et al, 2020;Hallsworth et al, 2018).…”