Theoretical Frontiers in Representative Bureaucracy: New Directions for Research

Abstract

The notion of a representative bureaucracy has generated a great deal of research although many issues are yet to be resolved and some have not been addressed. This theoretical essay uses a contingency theory approach to address a set of key questions relevant to representative bureaucracy. It discusses who is represented and what values get represented at the aggregate level, why bureaucrats represent, who they represent, and which bureaucrats represent at the individual level, and the empirical issues of critical mass, intersectionality, and how representation might change as a minority becomes a majority. The essay proposes 15 testable hypotheses and four modeling recommendations for empirical analysis.

Representative Bureaucracy, Distributional Equity, and Environmental Justice

“…Women officeholders become more protective of policy choices benefiting women and minorities when the policy choices are at stake under cutback pressure (Park ). Taken together, these findings imply that the active advocacy of representative administrators for policy benefits of the focal group may decrease or cease beyond the equity point, attesting to minority or female bureaucrats’ efforts to compensate for preexisting inequities and redistribute resources in an equitable way (Meier ).…”

“…The theory of representative bureaucracy is based on the belief that a bureaucracy that reflects the composition of the public will better serve diverse interests and democratic principles. Thus, bureaucratic representation relates not only to the demographic characteristics of public administrators (i.e., passive representation) but also to “the process of acting for or acting in the interests” of the focal groups that they resemble (i.e., active representation) (Meier , 40; see also Keiser ; Kennedy ; Park ; Park and Liang ; Selden ). Two contextual conditions are particularly essential to the transformation of passive into active representation (Meier ).…”

“…In pursuit of representation or equity, public bureaucrats may behave differently beyond the point of equity. “A bureaucrat seeking representation (but not equity) will continue to press for more benefits for the individuals of this class; the equity‐seeking bureaucrat, in contrast, will reduce efforts in this direction (perhaps to focus on other areas)” (Meier , 43). One of the most important contexts is preexisting inequity.…”

“…Notably, distributional equity plays an important moderating role. Distributional equity in representative bureaucracy describes a scenario in which “minority bureaucrats actively produce additional benefits for minority clients so long as those clients are receiving less than an equitable share … Once equity is reached, however, bureaucrats no longer show partiality to clients of the same group” (Nicholson‐Crotty, Grissom, and Nicholson‐Crotty , 586; see also Hong ; Meier ). Thus, bureaucratic efforts to compensate for preexisting inequities can reconcile the potential conflicts between bureaucratic representation and democratic values.…”

“…Echoing the call for more attention to distributional equity in studying representative bureaucracy, which is “a field concerned with disadvantaged groups” (Meier , 54), this article explores the role of bureaucratic representation and distributional equity in the implementation of environmental policy. Linking to environmental justice (or environmental equity), which has been an integral part of the broader environmental movement since the early 1980s, this research contributes to the scholarship by advancing the inquiry about social equity in public administration (Gooden ; Guy and McCandless ; Svara and Johnson )1; enriching our understanding of representative bureaucracy in the environmental policy area, which is generally lacking in the literature (Bishu and Kennedy ); adding empirical evidence to the literature, in which “measuring tradeoffs between groups is limited, contradictory, and ultimately inconclusive” (Kennedy , 412); and examining the representation‐equity link in a non‐service‐oriented regulation‐centered agency.…”