Bureaucratic Representation, Accountability, and Democracy: A Qualitative Study of Indigenous Bureaucrats in Australia and Canada

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Catherine Althaus,Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13492

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

646

Abstract: Using a qualitative study of Indigenous public servants in Canada and Australia, this article helps open the

“black box” of bureaucratic representation. Findings dispel any idea that active representation is unproblematic for

minority bureaucrats themselves. In fact, it exacts a high price with respect to working in isolation, confronting racism,

facing formidable obstacles to pursue, or challenge policy processes and outcomes aligned with the interests of the

communities from which they come and ultimately leading many to exit the bureaucracy or forego career opportunities.

Despite this, our findings show that Indigenous bureaucrats bring about policy change that would not otherwise occur,

and mechanisms of accountability are at work, within government and between bureaucrats and the communities

from which they are drawn. Indigenous bureaucratic leadership is valuable in bridging understanding between elected

officials and communities and navigating respectfully the intersections of culture and power across the policy making

process to the benefit of all citizens, to “country” and across generations. These findings imply that new inclusive models

of representative bureaucracy are both necessary and desirable to make bureaucracy serve multicultural societies and

constructively confront environmental crises in the modern era.

Evidence for Practice

• Concepts that equate bureaucratic “partiality” with favoritism, oversimplify the way in which public servants

consider, and manage tensions between minority interests they are assumed to “represent” and the wider

public interest and democratic accountability.

• Participants in our research are acutely aware of the need to balance two “lines of accountability” (to

government and to their communities), and when the tension between the two cannot be managed, they

beat a tactical retreat and wait for a more favorable opportunity, or, if this seems unlikely, they leave the

public service.

• Indigenous public servants promote the democratic project by actively involving otherwise disenfranchised

members of society, including the perspectives of time and the land itself, in the policy making process. They

make government and its processes understandable and help (re)build trust.

Representative bureaucracy refers to the idea that

the composition of any bureaucracyshould

mirror that of society and in doing so,

reflect the diversity of attitudes, values, and interests

found therein (Krislov2012). To the extent that

bureaucracies do reflect this diversity, they are

believed to be more likely to create or facilitate policy

outcomes that contribute to the well-being of the

population as a whole (Bradbury and Kellough2011;

Coleman, Brudney, and Kellough1998).

Bureaucratic representation can be (1) passive, with its

impact following automatically from the social and

cultural values and attitudes of its members. Recent

scholarship has explored symbolic representation as

a unique passive form that can change the attitudes,

behaviors, and trust levels of minority citizens

through their positive associations with minority

bureaucrats, thereby contributing to potential

legitimacy improvement and willingness to coproduce

policy and service delivery (Headley, Wright, and

Meier2021; Riccucci et al.2015; Ryzin et al.2017).

Alternatively bureaucratic representation can be (2)

active, in which case bureaucrats work consciously and

deliberately to change existing policies and patterns

of resource allocation in ways that improve outcomes

for the population cohort from which they are

drawn. Assuming that bureaucrats exercise a degree

of discretion, bureaucratic representation, particularly

active representation, can have significant implications

for accountability and democracy.

Some public administration scholars consider the

effects of bureaucratic representation to be negative

on the basis that bureaucrats who pursue the interests

of cohorts from which they are drawn are not

Catherine Althaus

Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh

Griffith University

Bureaucratic Representation, Accountability, and Democracy:

A Qualitative Study of Indigenous Bureaucrats in Australia

and Canada

Research Article

Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh is a professor

of Politics and Public Policy at School of

Government and International Relations,

Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland,

and Program Leader for the research stream

on Public Policy Design and Delivery in

the University’s Centre for Governance

and Public Policy. His research centers on

the interface between Indigenous peoples

and resource development; Indigenous

governance, including the role of

Indigenous leadership in the public service

and on policy implementation and policy

evaluation.

Email: ciaran.ofaircheallaigh@griffith.

edu.au

Catherine Althaus is an ANZSOG

(Carlton, Victoria) Chair of Public Service

Leadership and Reform at University of

New South Wales (Canberra), Deputy Dean

(Teaching & Learning) at the Australia

and New Zealand School of Government,

Extraordinary Professor (University of

Pretoria) and an Honorary Member of

the South Asian Network for Public

Administration. She was previously Director

of the School of Public Administration at the

University of Victoria, British Columbia, and

a civil servant in Queensland Treasury.

Email: c.althuas@anzsog.edu.au

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 82, Iss. 4, pp. 646–659. © 2022 The

Authors. Public Administration Review

published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on

behalf of American Society for Public

Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13492.

ANZSOG