What are the trends and gaps in representative bureaucracy?

Paper Title: Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy

Responsible researcher: Viviane Pires Ribeiro

Authors: Sebawit G. Bishu and Alexis R. Kennedy

Intervention Location: United States

Sample Size: 96 articles

Major theme: Economic Policy and Governance

Variable of Main Interest: Representative Bureaucracy

Type of Intervention : Meta-review of representative bureaucracy

Methodology: Literature review

Given that the theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy explores the link between the social and demographic characteristics of bureaucrats and their likelihood of taking actions that benefit citizens with whom they share identities, Bishu and Kennedy (2020) analyze 96 articles on representative bureaucracy for explore how the theoretical framework is described, applied and tracks the contextual development of representative bureaucracy over time. Thus, the authors conclude that representative bureaucracy was applied in limited geographic, methodological and political areas. In other words, the absence of studies that focus on intersectional identities, different geographic and political contexts, and more qualitative and mixed methods prevent understanding the link between passive and active representation.

Assessment Context

The theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy has been one of the ways that political science and public administration scholars have approached the question of how well government officials serve the public. Representative bureaucracy theory posits that bureaucracies that share demographic characteristics with the public are more likely to make decisions that benefit those they serve. In a democratic state, this helps legitimize the actions of government bureaucrats.

Through this theory it is possible to recognize that, in certain circumstances, there is a link between representation and bureaucratic decisions that affect minorities and women. Studies of representative bureaucracy examine the circumstances in which representation does, or does not, produce positive outcomes for traditionally underrepresented groups. Although several studies apply representative bureaucracy theory to examine the effects of representation on outcomes that benefit minority groups, the existing literature lacks an in-depth analysis of the theory's application, thus missing the opportunity to examine the strength and limitation of its further application. broad.

Intervention Details

Bishu and Kennedy (2020) conduct an analysis of 96 peer-reviewed journal articles focusing on representative bureaucracy. Given that the need for diversity and inclusion in bureaucracies is currently a critical discourse, the authors aim to achieve three objectives. Firstly, they seek to document conceptual applications of the theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy, identifying the historical development of bureaucracy along with its conceptual evolution. This objective aims to fulfill two purposes. Firstly, it aims to trace the conceptual development of the theory over time. Furthermore, it aims to understand trends in the types of issues addressed and questions asked when the theory is applied. Second, the authors seek to uncover contextual and analytical applications of the theoretical framework to highlight where representative bureaucracy has been widely applied, where it has been minimally applied, and where it is absent. Third, they provide an assessment of how representative bureaucracy has been tested. This helps to highlight the different dimensions within which the theoretical framework has been used, as well as to identify its strengths, gaps and limitations.

To collect articles focused on representative bureaucracy, the authors consulted and examined the reference list of each of the collected articles. The total list includes 227 articles, eight book chapters, 33 books and four dissertations. Through the review, articles that did not focus directly on representative bureaucracy and that were from areas other than public administration were eliminated. The main focus of the study was the analysis of empirical articles, in addition to theoretical articles that shed new light on the definition and application of the theoretical framework. Furthermore, for the analysis, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included, thus excluding book chapters, books, book reviews and responses, and dissertations. The final database included 96 peer-reviewed journal articles.

Methodology Details

A two-step content analysis was performed by Bishu and Kennedy (2020). In the first stage, the authors together selected the 96 articles to be included in the review. In the second stage, they identified the thematic areas that guided the development of the coding instrument. Coding instruments were generated to describe how the theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy is applied. In the second stage, they independently used the coding instrument to code each of the 96 articles. After coding all 96 articles, they compared the coding results. When the coding result differed, the authors reached a consensus on coding decisions.

The coding procedure used was as follows: (a) create categories in which themes are coded; (b) define categories based on the authors' understanding of the literature; and (c) read articles and code relevant themes by placing them into established categories. Coding was done to allow for both quantitative analysis (by counting specific themes using an Excel spreadsheet) and qualitative analysis (by grouping specific themes using NVivo software).

Results

The study carried out by Bishu and Kennedy (2020) shows that most studies using the theoretical framework are applied within limited political and geographical contexts. Limiting the political and geographic context in which representative bureaucracy is tested poses a number of challenges to the development of the theoretical framework. The first challenge concerns understanding whether representative bureaucracy produces similar results in different policy areas. The application of the theoretical framework in different policy areas can take different forms as a result of different outcomes. Likewise, little is known about whether the outcomes of representative bureaucracy outside the US context are similar to those found within its borders. Third, an equally important challenge is the meaningful operationalization of representation across multiple geographic contexts. The review of existing literature suggests that little is known about how disparities in access to services due to where people live are affected by differences in gender, race/ethnicity, class, region, or social identities. Therefore, there is a need to expand the application of representative bureaucracy beyond the geographic context of the US and the policy areas of education and law enforcement. This will help test the theoretical framework in new areas, inform its generalizability, and identify its usefulness and possible conceptual limitations.

Another way to evaluate the use of representative bureaucracy is to examine the method used to analyze data in previous studies. The review of existing literature reveals that the theoretical framework has been applied in limited methodological contexts. While applying quantitative methods helps researchers discover trends and associations, qualitative methods help discover how and why representational processes generate results. On the other hand, the application of mixed methods approaches can reach questions of association and why or how processes produce specific results. The lack of diverse methodological application suggests that questions that can only be answered with qualitative or mixed methods remain unanswered, limiting the development and usefulness of the theoretical framework.

Public Policy Lessons

Based on a review of 96 articles on representative bureaucracy, Bishu and Kennedy (2020) report that there is ample room to expand and develop the theoretical framework. The future application of representative bureaucracy must extend the definition and operationalization of representation beyond the dichotomies of gender and racial identities. The authors encourage researchers to look at representation in terms of intersectional identities and in forms of demographic identities other than gender and race that are missing in the existing literature. The study recommends expanding the application of the theoretical framework beyond the US geographic location into less explored policy areas and applying diverse analytical methods to increase the generalizability of representative bureaucracy theory and better understand why it produces certain results. Furthermore, the review suggests that practical applications of the theoretical framework should be further studied to not only work to recruit a more diverse workforce, but also train the existing workforce to be more inclusive of diverse populations.

In addition to actively recruiting and promoting members of minority populations and women in the bureaucracy, organizations must also lead and train their current workforce on social equity and how to be allies. Ignoring white people, white men, and men who make up a large portion of the government workforce increases the divide between white and non-white individuals and men and women, and reinforces otherness rather than inclusion. Therefore, future research on representative bureaucracy should consider how to change the workforce by including more people who represent marginalized populations, as well as training those already in government to be allies to disenfranchised groups.

References

BISHU, Sebawit G.; KENNEDY, Alexis R. Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration , vol. 40, no. 4, p. 559-588, 2020.