Bureaucracy, Democracy, and Race: The Limits of Symbolic Representation

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Andrea M. Headley,James E. Wright,Kenneth J. Meier
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13358

Bureaucracy, Democracy, and Race: The Limits of Symbolic Representation 1033

Research Article

Abstract: A bureaucracy that is representative of the public it serves—passive representation—can result in both

active representation and symbolic representation. Symbolic representation occurs when passive representation improves

perceptions of legitimacy and enhances bureaucratic outcomes because the public is more cooperative and more likely

to engage in coproduction. We present a new micro-theory of symbolic representation to show that symbolic benefits of

passive representation depend on some level of positive treatment by bureaucrats. We then illustrate the utility of this

theory with qualitative interviews from two cities with large populations of people of color and high proportions of

police officers of color. The results suggest that increasing the demographic representativeness of the bureaucracy may be

a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for improving the relationship between the public and the bureaucracy.

Practitioner Points

• Personal, familial, or vicarious encounters with the police influence the public’s perceptions of police officers.

• The public recognizes the need for increased racial representation in policing; however, officers’ attitudes and

actions toward the public are more salient for shaping the public’s perceptions of police.

• Without benign treatment by bureaucrats, symbolic representation can be stymied and even result in no

benefits or potentially negative effects for the public.

Representative bureaucracy is one prominent

proposal to reconcile the need for bureaucracy

with the imperatives of democracy (Riccucci

and Van Ryzin 2017). The literature on representative

bureaucracy incorporates three different definitions

of representation—passive, active, and symbolic

(see Kennedy 2014; Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017).

In his classic book, Democracy and the Public

Service, Mosher (1968, 12–14) defined these terms

and provided the motivation for the subsequent

empirical work on representative bureaucracy.

Passive representation was specified as the degree

that the bureaucracy would “mirror the total society”

in terms of demographic origins such as “previous

occupation, father’s occupation, education, family

income, family social class, race, religion” (p. 12).

Active representation in contrast meant a bureaucrat

was “expected to press for the interests and desires of

those whom he is presumed to represent, whether they

be the whole people or some segment of the people”

(p. 12). Mosher (p. 13) admitted “we know too little

about the relationship between a man’s background

and preemployment socialization on the one hand, and

his orientation and behavior in office on the other.”

While he conceded this was an important question, he

made an independent case for the symbolic benefits of

passive bureaucratic representation:

While passive representativeness is no guarantor

of democratic decision-making, it carries some

independent and symbolic values that are significant

for a democratic society. A broadly representative public

service, especially at the level of leadership, suggests an

open service in which access is available to most people,

whatever their station in life, and in which there is

equality of opportunity (Mosher 1968, 13–14).

To drive his point home, Mosher (p. 14) concludes,

“The importance of passive representativeness often

resides less in the behaviors of public employees than in

the fact that the employees who are there are there at all.”

Although symbolic representation has been a

concern in the representative bureaucracy literature

from its onset (Kingsley 1994; Long 1952), recent

empirical research has both embraced the concept

and demonstrated its importance in shaping both

public attitudes and policy outcomes (Meier and

Nicholson-Crotty 2006; Merritt 2019a, 2019b;

Park and Liang 2019; Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017;

Andrea M. Headley

James E. Wright II

Kenneth J. Meier

American University

Cardiff University

Leiden University

Bureaucracy, Democracy, and Race: The Limits of Symbolic

Representation

Georgetown University

Florida State University

Kenneth J. Meier a distinguished scholar

in residence at the School of Public Affairs,

American University, a professor of public

management at Cardiff University, and

professor of bureaucracy and democracy at

Leiden University. He studies everything.

Email: kmeier@american.edu

James E. Wright II is an assistant

professor in the Askew School of Public

Administration and Policy at Florida State

University. He is a public management,

public policy, and social justice scholar.

Email: jwright4@fsu.edu

Andrea M. Headley is an assistant

professor in the McCourt School of Public

Policy at Georgetown University. She is

a public management, social equity, and

criminal justice policy scholar.

Email: andrea.headley@georgetown.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 6, pp. 1033–1043. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13358.

The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations

expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the funding source.